Richard Branson is on a big AstroTurf PR tabloid inch buying jaunt following several recent exposé on apparent similarities between Branson and Jeffrey Epstein. This might be why he keeps emerging from his nonsense island to do photoshoots and hunt virgins enemies (like Eurostar)
Pfft. That's not saying much. Seems like they suddenly leapt straight in to action after barely a couple of years of justifications and excuses. I would piss my knickers if they got a certain human rights expert with relevant government experience to be involved in the lengthy "legal process" to determine if anything bad happened during the genocide
I saw Eli Computer Guy on YT yesterday describing how "you don't allow the intern full access/permissions/privileges to delete the production database". Swap "AI" for "intern" in the marketing material and the real culprit is clear - it's the person who left the door open without any foresight or common sense. You can't blame the intern.
It's a literal $50b pay day for OpenAI (and the sole motivation for why they keep announcing it, attempt to change what it means, or try to claim it has been reached)
Fictions? It's easy to make a mistake isn't it. We could all be victims in the right circumstances. We can feel compassion and demand more severe punishments for banks that facilitate it (like in my industry) where everyone in the chain has to give the money back and/or give up the id of the party they gave the money to until a culprit is exposed - the victims bank refunds the victim, the bank the money was transferred to returns it to the victims bank, and so on. Where there is a will, there is a way.
One of the three hit a fire hydrant and a tree before the battery ignited. The flaming prison cell on three wheels is not the expected behaviour following a minor road traffic accident either: "In this total nightmare scenario, the doors would not open, and the driver couldn’t break the Cybertruck’s “armored” windows from inside"
True. Although I like how the headlines referring to the product as "pervert glasses" combined with headlines like this one leave little room for nuance. I hope the next logical step is for users to be forced to say "not all pervert glass wearers are sex offenders". Embarrassment, shame, and ridicule is a better enforcement tool than any government action or restriction.
This is a great single-button arcade game. I played the fuck out of this addictive game on Switch when I broke my thumb. It's worth it for this price whether you have accessibility restrictions or not.
Thank you for the translations. My mind still boggles. Is it accurate to sum this up as...
"Willow (human) received a thread of messages from their partner (human) who is dehumanising them by referring to them as a bot / claiming to be having a separate relationship with a bot that they created (based on Willows attributes) while intimating that Willow is also in a relationship with someone/something else?"
Check OP post / comment history - it's a rage/troll/weird account. I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberately trying to make any/all AI scepticism look infantile and fanatical.
This is a very long video with a shitty title. The covered words are probably "How to [talk about] a Data Center". I was expecting clear instructions on how to actually ████ a Data Center, but alas no joy.
They are very common in the UK - flexible bollards are widespread here to prevent damage to vehicles after the inevitable collisions. Using them to separate cars from bike lanes is also common - and says the quiet part out loud: https://startsafety.uk/collections/flexible-bollards
We need to be asking how people who are residents in, or responsible for the creation of, illegal Israeli settlements are getting money for providing road maintenance, transport services, driving licensing etc in the UK. If our own public services won't "buy British", what hope do we have?
Sorry - I meant "permission", not cookie. If this is on (for Bluetooth headphones, sharing content, smart home etc) you could be leaking your location. If your partner shares their location, and you don't - but you do allow your phone permission for nearby devices - your partners phone is revealing their own location, and their proximity to to you (your location). Third party cookies can be relevant for this because they allow browsers to identify/differentiate other users on the same network. If one user shares their location (or their location is known by the site they visited), then the other users on the networks location is also obtained.
One of the most pernicious cookies is the one that allows them to identify nearby devices. Even if you do not allow location specifically, consider exactly how much location data can be pieced together from that alone. It's impossible to overestimate the amount of data they have on you.
It's not about that specific £160k donation - its about keeping someone who has the means to donate £160k to a potential PM happy - £160k is peanuts - they might want to give £10million to an actual PM (or the next PM, or the PM after that). My only point is that Burnham pretended like he would stop massive individual donations to prevent cash for influence "if I get in to power" while he was taking massive individual donations. Now he is in power, he is blaming the unions for changing his mind and allowing massive individual donations to continue. He is just scapegoating unions (whose members collectively donated £20k between them in the last year) as the sole cause of him having to take the difficult decision NOT to support measures that would adversely affect him, and the tiny handful of people who actually gave him vast sums of money. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where this motivation might come from. It's not the unions.
Burnham has presented this u turn on the £300k cap as pressure from unions, but the finances show that he received a pittance from all union members combined in the last year (£20k). He received nearly £325k from 6 individuals in the same period (including the £160k from Lord Sainsbury). The union angle is bollocks - it's more likely that some of the 6 people that gave him £320k don't want any caps at all, thank you very much. Suddenly he is no longer backing any caps at all, and blaming unions. Maybe my logic is flawed.
Richard Branson is on a big AstroTurf PR tabloid inch buying jaunt following several recent exposé on apparent similarities between Branson and Jeffrey Epstein. This might be why he keeps emerging from his nonsense island to do photoshoots and hunt virgins enemies (like Eurostar)
Pfft. That's not saying much. Seems like they suddenly leapt straight in to action after barely a couple of years of justifications and excuses. I would piss my knickers if they got a certain human rights expert with relevant government experience to be involved in the lengthy "legal process" to determine if anything bad happened during the genocide
I saw Eli Computer Guy on YT yesterday describing how "you don't allow the intern full access/permissions/privileges to delete the production database". Swap "AI" for "intern" in the marketing material and the real culprit is clear - it's the person who left the door open without any foresight or common sense. You can't blame the intern.
It's a literal $50b pay day for OpenAI (and the sole motivation for why they keep announcing it, attempt to change what it means, or try to claim it has been reached)
Fictions? It's easy to make a mistake isn't it. We could all be victims in the right circumstances. We can feel compassion and demand more severe punishments for banks that facilitate it (like in my industry) where everyone in the chain has to give the money back and/or give up the id of the party they gave the money to until a culprit is exposed - the victims bank refunds the victim, the bank the money was transferred to returns it to the victims bank, and so on. Where there is a will, there is a way.
One of the three hit a fire hydrant and a tree before the battery ignited. The flaming prison cell on three wheels is not the expected behaviour following a minor road traffic accident either: "In this total nightmare scenario, the doors would not open, and the driver couldn’t break the Cybertruck’s “armored” windows from inside"
Video: https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/9/7/robots-protest-in-poland-over-ai-regulation-concerns
Rickyism 101: "supply and command... you need supply, I command you not to"
True. Although I like how the headlines referring to the product as "pervert glasses" combined with headlines like this one leave little room for nuance. I hope the next logical step is for users to be forced to say "not all pervert glass wearers are sex offenders". Embarrassment, shame, and ridicule is a better enforcement tool than any government action or restriction.
This is a great single-button arcade game. I played the fuck out of this addictive game on Switch when I broke my thumb. It's worth it for this price whether you have accessibility restrictions or not.
Gross. I see what you mean - has to be bait
Thank you for the translations. My mind still boggles. Is it accurate to sum this up as...
"Willow (human) received a thread of messages from their partner (human) who is dehumanising them by referring to them as a bot / claiming to be having a separate relationship with a bot that they created (based on Willows attributes) while intimating that Willow is also in a relationship with someone/something else?"
Check OP post / comment history - it's a rage/troll/weird account. I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberately trying to make any/all AI scepticism look infantile and fanatical.
This is a very long video with a shitty title. The covered words are probably "How to [talk about] a Data Center". I was expecting clear instructions on how to actually ████ a Data Center, but alas no joy.
They are very common in the UK - flexible bollards are widespread here to prevent damage to vehicles after the inevitable collisions. Using them to separate cars from bike lanes is also common - and says the quiet part out loud: https://startsafety.uk/collections/flexible-bollards
We need to be asking how people who are residents in, or responsible for the creation of, illegal Israeli settlements are getting money for providing road maintenance, transport services, driving licensing etc in the UK. If our own public services won't "buy British", what hope do we have?
Sorry - I meant "permission", not cookie. If this is on (for Bluetooth headphones, sharing content, smart home etc) you could be leaking your location. If your partner shares their location, and you don't - but you do allow your phone permission for nearby devices - your partners phone is revealing their own location, and their proximity to to you (your location). Third party cookies can be relevant for this because they allow browsers to identify/differentiate other users on the same network. If one user shares their location (or their location is known by the site they visited), then the other users on the networks location is also obtained.
One of the most pernicious cookies is the one that allows them to identify nearby devices. Even if you do not allow location specifically, consider exactly how much location data can be pieced together from that alone. It's impossible to overestimate the amount of data they have on you.
It's not about that specific £160k donation - its about keeping someone who has the means to donate £160k to a potential PM happy - £160k is peanuts - they might want to give £10million to an actual PM (or the next PM, or the PM after that). My only point is that Burnham pretended like he would stop massive individual donations to prevent cash for influence "if I get in to power" while he was taking massive individual donations. Now he is in power, he is blaming the unions for changing his mind and allowing massive individual donations to continue. He is just scapegoating unions (whose members collectively donated £20k between them in the last year) as the sole cause of him having to take the difficult decision NOT to support measures that would adversely affect him, and the tiny handful of people who actually gave him vast sums of money. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where this motivation might come from. It's not the unions.
Burnham has presented this u turn on the £300k cap as pressure from unions, but the finances show that he received a pittance from all union members combined in the last year (£20k). He received nearly £325k from 6 individuals in the same period (including the £160k from Lord Sainsbury). The union angle is bollocks - it's more likely that some of the 6 people that gave him £320k don't want any caps at all, thank you very much. Suddenly he is no longer backing any caps at all, and blaming unions. Maybe my logic is flawed.