40yearoldman

> I don't have the knowledge, equipment, skill or time to verify the content of every piece of information I come across so I rely on reputable sources who i trust to verify it for me.

Then pointing out the source is not to your standard is moot. This is a conversation, where opinions and conversations can be had out side in the views or credibility of the source which posted it.

If we were merely to consider the source then hacker news might as well be dig , but with a few “trusted” sources like what cnn?

Haha. No. The source of the information never matters. The content is all that matters. Alas the population has been trained not to think for them self but be told what ideas are good or bad based off who said them. This idiotic thinking runs rapid through out the world causing havoc.

Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site?

Why do t you just read the article and make your own decisions based off the information provided.

The most reputable sites get stuff wrong all the time, so even the least reputable can probably get some things right sometimes.

The requirement for infromation to be valued based on who said it vs what is being said will be the downfall of society.

Roblox?

> of logging into the fire department’s payroll system and altering her Social Security/Medicare FICA deductions in order to increase her biweekly take-home pay by a few hundred dollars.

Meanwhile I can do just that and have been able to do that at every company ever. I don’t understand why this is an issue.

Eh. Part of apples brand is “doing the right thing” and “being the good guy”. I would wager Apple’s brand would be hurt more by not being a green company. ROI is more complicated than simple fist level cost. Going green and doubling down on recycling has generated a much larger ROI than doing nothing.

Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders. Simply put, if Tim favored environmental concerns over profit he would be removed.

Minus the ones the screened out?

Homeless is such a broad term. It includes people that most people don’t even know exist.

When people say homeless they are referring to the visible ones on the street.

Most studies and statistics like to use the ones who are homeless on paper. They are the ones who don’t have place to live other than publicly provided facilities. There are entire apartments of people you would otherwise not know are “homeless”, simply because they are not the one paying for their own room and board.

We need a new term. Something to call the people that when somebody says homeless, we invasion in our head.

Homeless is to broad. Nobody thinks you are differently because you got kicked out of your apartment or lost a job and fell behind on mortgage.

In the other hand. The people clogging intersections. Spitting on others, taking shots in public, doing drugs and fuxking on the street, nobody thinks and no study shows 7500 would do anything other than make it worse. Ans that is why this study excluded these people from the study.

Meet a guy who started farming 3 years ago and is now night farming...

Gee I wonder why they did not interview legacy farmers...

Yah. But by fact image processing results in entirely different image, even if you can’t see the changes.

So. The string lengths, colors, and hole position in the paint cans along with initial velocity and angle are what can qualify for copyright?

Are paint brushes just tools people have access to, does the manufacturer of the paint brush own the painting?

Prompts are no different than positions and angles the artist instructs the tool to motion. The only real difference is the ratio of perceived work to output.

Even a prompt could take years to derive. I am 40. And 30 years ago I could have not com up with the following, making the prompt below 40 years in the making.

“Field of dead dreams, with copyright monsters flying above looking for there next meal”.

Spell check fixed a few things, along with typo correction, does Apple know own a copyright of my work?

Given this it would seem running any simple algo such as balance colors or adjust lighting would disqualify the output for copyright. Only change here was the algo used.

How is this different than attaching 10 paint cans of different color from strings and poking hold in them and letting them swing?

Could the creator of the ai producing code then hold copyright, or maybe it’s those who found the weights?

This ruling seems to suggest any method of automating works would not qualify for copyright.

If so. We are just one step closer to abandoning the notion of a copyright, which still is the only logical solution in a world where we can have and do anything we desire at the click of a button.

Oh god. I just realized this is a PM. A plight on software engineering. People who play technical, and “take the requirements from the customer to the engineer”. What’s worse is when they play engineer too.

lol. No. Deployments were not the issue. At any given time an automated deployment system could have had a mistake introduced that resulted in bad code being sent to the system. It does not matter if it was old or new code. Any code could have had this bug.

What the issue was, and it’s one that I see often. Firstly no vision into the system. Not even a dash board showing the softwares running version. How often i see people ship software without a banner posting its version and or an endpoint that simply reports the version.

Secondly no god damn kill switch. You are working with money!! Shutting down has to be an option.