Adobe will sue not because they are legally correct but because it is an effective tactic. They need only to make the case expensive until they bankrupt the defendant. Legality is not relevant to their case.

Crack open a history book, start with the 1947 Shubaki family assassination by Zionist paramilitary. And then work your way forward through the back and forth reprisals, the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, and the 1947-1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine.

Once you're caught up, reread your diatribe on Hamas. It is okay to be naive and have myoptic opinions initially, as long as you can also grow and learn.

Amazon has peaked, they have fully saturated multiple markets. They are not going to add any more customers in the US. This cannot be considered a growth industry anymore.

Let's hope that few of them interact with their vehicle like its a person. Because if you're having a two-way conversation where your motorcycle tells you how smart and clever you are, that's almost certainly a mental illness.

The interface of chatbot LLMs is ultimately what differentiate it from calling your nation, battleship, rifle, car, etc. a "she". And we should tread very carefully in assigning human qualities to a machine that was trained to imitate and manipulate human beings.

And like I recommend time and time again. We have to regulate these chatbot LLMs because of the social costs to the psychological manipulation that is inherent to their very design.

And here I thought geeks and hackers prioritized freedom and technical superiority over popularity. I'm fortunate you are here to correct my faulty assumption.

That argument only works if there either isn't a statistically measurable and consistent bias, or if you assume that bias is because men just have better ideas.

I'd like to see some comparisons between power consumption for JXL and JPEG. Constant image quality, file sizes will vary, total energy consumed by the download and decoding process.

We have known about this for decades. It's called internalized sexism. Back when women where trying to get the vote, some women opposed them. They made the same arguments against it that men did.

It's understood to be largely a product of systemic sexism in our culture. It's been getting better, but it's still there. An example is how ideals of feminity were portrayed in the 1950s. The housewife, the home maker, the mother. Obedient to her husband. That's why there was so much focus on representation, so that girls didn't grow up only seeing that as the natural and proper order of things.

In the 90s there was Girl Power, and for the last 25 years we have had many, many badass action women in movies. They aren't really what we need now though. Just more competent women doing "normal" jobs, or as normal as it gets in TV shows and movies.

Simple, we should make it illegal to represent an AI with a gender and pronouns. How illegal? Fines, injunctions, etc. Make it expensive to be wrong.

Why? Because it's a goddamn machine and a whole lot of problems go away if we stop anthropomorphize it.

That's not what "directly involved" means. Its tourism as best, and at worst: just Seinfeld being a shill.

Yes, that's generally how it works. Although my family mainly gets called communist and anti-Semitic these days.

Most comics play both sides. In a semi-public social setting, they'll participate with a "yes, and" when it's racist, anti-woke, etc. And claim it is comedy. When you make light of the ridiculous positions that Bill Maher or Jerry Seinfeld have to their face, it's suddenly censorship or "evil" (Seinfeld's words LOL).
If you want an example of a comedian that is both funny and a decent person, check out Stavros Halkias. He might seem "woke" because he's not willing to play to decades old stereotypes for cheap laughs. But it turns out you can rip on people and poke fun and be "edgy" without using the nearest trans person as your punching bag.

tl;dr - old, washed up comedians aren't worth anyone's time.

We've dealt with machine proofs before, that's been a thing in the field of mathematics for decades. And the proof's value hinges on if it contributes to the advancement of human knowledge. If humans eventually understand the proof, great. If we have yet another proof that a human can't peel back to find broader principles, then the contribution is of minuscule value.

If someone were to say that 1% of the techniques were novel, I would be surprised that it is so high. So yes, "mostly" is the correct qualifier here.

Wars are too profitable to end without immediately starting another. Oil nations and Islamists are a never ending wellspring of fear to feed to the masses.

Yes, this is what the the world needs most right now: ridiculously shitty 'games' that no one would pay a nickel for.

Prepare for a deluge of bottom-tier, utterly unplayable garbage with the word "game" somewhere in the ad copy.