That’s certainly the point she’s making to avoid giving a direct answer.

Yeah, I was amazed by Atlas Shrugged too…when I was 14.

Just for fun: this would have worked so much better if they price dropped the PS5 and introduced the PS5 Pro at the old price.

People are anchored into thinking the PS5 is a certain value, and if they did that, it would instantly make the PS5 Pro and the PS5 appear to be a bargain, and so much of the PS5-owning public would have bought another system because it would be “such a good deal,” while PS5 fence-sitters would jump at the core system. I’m not trained to say for sure, but I think while their profit margin would be lower they’d be making much more money.

This is what we should’ve spent every waking moment doing since 2016. Why do we distract so easily…

Considering Trump’s track record, it would be strange if he supported something actually likely to succeed.

This is tragic. I can’t think of how many computers I built using incomparable Anandtech articles. The depth of the testing, and careful, scientific planning really has no match in tech journalism.

The high water mark just lowered.

Musk is taking it to the farm upstate.

Ah, I remember that timeline. The one where things got, what do you call it…better?

Oh, for sure. I’m talking about laws specifically targeted to minors. “Obscenity” is a catch-all that is well-established, but if you are trying to protect children from abuse, it’s a very blunt instrument and not as effective as targeted abuse and trafficking statutes. The statutory schemes used to outlaw virtual CSAM have failed to my knowledge.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

That case was statutorily superseded in part by the PROTECT Act, which attempted to differentiate itself by…relying on an obscenity standard. So it’s a bit illusory that it does anything new.

It’s hard to have a nuanced discussion because the article is so vague. It’s not clear what he’s specifically been charged with (beyond “obscenity,” not a specific child abuse statute?). Because any simulated CSAM laws have been, to my knowledge, all struck down when challenged.

I completely get the “lock them all up and throw away the key” visceral reaction - I feel that too, for sure - but this is a much more difficult question. There are porn actors over 18 who look younger, do the laws outlaw them from work that would be legal for others who just look older? If AI was trained exclusively on those over-18 people, would outputs then not be CSAM even if the images produced features that looked under 18?

I’m at least all for a “fruit of the poisoned tree” theory - if AI model training data sets include actual CSAM then they can and should be made illegal. Deepfaking intentionally real under 18 people is also not black and white (looking again to the harm factor), but also I think it can be justifiably prohibited. I also think distribution of completely fake CSAM can be arguably outlawed (the situation here), since it’s going to be impossible to tell AI from real imagery soon and allowing that would undermine enforcement of vital anti-real-CSAM laws.

The real hard case is producing and retaining fully fake people and without real CSAM in training data, solely locally (possession crimes). That’s really tough. Because not only does it not directly hurt anyone in its creation, there’s a possible benefit in that it diminishes the market for real CSAM (potentially saving unrelated children from the abuse flowing from that demand), and could also divert the impulse of the producer from preying on children around them due to unfulfilled desire.

Could, because I don’t think there’s studies that answers whether those are true.

I just read the article and I don’t know her name.

“Oh, so we can just steal ‘weird’ and turn it against them, like we did ‘fake news’ and ‘fascist’ and all the others, right?”

Followed by:

“Look at these weird liberals who want health care and don’t think of women as cattle!”

#winning, Donald and JD. Never stop never stopping.

Yes, as the saying goes, “Even a stuffed cluck tells the right time twice a day.”

It’s called Unreal PT. The last version I believe is 1.0.7, and it’s still hosted on the Internet Archive.

Musk repeated the DDOS claim when the Space finally began around 8:40PM ET. “As this massive attack illustrates, there’s a lot of opposition to people just hearing what President Trump has to say,” he said.

So not only is he fabricating the DDOS out of thin air, but he just assumes out of nowhere that it’s politically motivated by the “opposition” to silence Trump - when Trump is vomiting nonsense that blankets the media 24/7 and this would do absolutely nothing to prevent Trump from exposing himself to the unwilling public. Galaxy brain genius logic right there.

Yikes. The parasocial relationship people have with Trump is psychotic - this guy clearly felt like an attempt on Trump’s life by a random nutjob was equivalent to an attempt on his own life by whoever is arguing with him.

My good faith response to your good faith question: because having a DRM-free copy on your own server or hard drive is the only way to be sure you will be able to play it tomorrow.

Streaming services are a complex collection of licensing deals that are by design temporary. You may not hear beforehand when your favorite artist’s label’s parent company’s conglomerate’s CEO decides to pull their content because they’re going to start their own streaming service, or another service gave them a lucrative exclusive deal.

And while you’re never going to have a hard time finding Taylor Swift, that one 70s esoteric album may become instantly impossible to find once it drops off a streamer.

In the end there are no promises with a streaming service. On the other hand, you put in a small amount of work to grab MP3s or FLACs, set up your own Plex server (or Emby, etc), and you’re good for pretty much forever.

Similarly, support artists by buying their direct merch, going to shows, and so on, but they are barely seeing any Spotify money. Between Spotify and the labels, they are cleaning the plate and artists are getting whatever crumbs fall off the table (unless you’re Taylor Swift or another global artist).

Today, the House Judiciary GOP’s official account on X called GARM being discontinued a “big win for the First Amendment” and a “big win for oversight.” X CEO Linda Yaccarino also applauded the news.

It’s just opposite day? We just say whatever is the opposite of what’s true?

deleted by creator

Has a GOP-controlled congressional committee uncovered any actual evidence in the past 20 years or so?

I take notice of whenever they have a new hearing or investigative issue, and each one I can remember has always been “let’s go on a fishing expedition to find dirt or at least impugn the character of a political rival” followed a year later by a Friday-night quiet disbanding of the committee with no findings, or a report being issued that says nothing of importance whatsoever.