as long as the topic is not controversial and political.

The problem is that the Wiki mods are VERY VERY biased. Not just a little. I have run into this personally just trying to make very simple edits. They would not accept simple facts that I had backup sources for.

This was just for movie credits for an actress that at some point had turned conservative...

So for anything political, Wikipide will be factually wrong, sometimes (or often) egregiously so.

But that's ok if it's only for political content right???

But there's the trouble you see. It affects what is political TO THEM in ways you cannot comprehend, so ANY page might be touched by the corruption of the Wikipedia moderator biases. I wouldn't think a simply actress filmography would be affected yet it was. No visitor other than that page would ever know it was inaccurate or incomplete.

So you can trust absolutely nothing from Wikipedia without extensive checking of what facts they refuse to list. Which makes the entire body of work garbage - I have not used it for years now.

Not sure why this is problematic.
Governments of the world ought to use open source software - they should also fund its development, perhaps even employ developers to maintain it.
Using proprietary software that costs money excludes some users and is not auditable. Neither of those things are good for tax payers.

The only people that take issue with this are microsoft and its zealots.

For a start they failed to prosecute broadcasters who fail to observe purdah during elections including the BBC, thus proving its motivation is in perserving the status quo.

Ofcom generally fails to prosecute news broadcasters that fail to observe impartiality rules.

BBC runs a program called "Question Time" which presents a false public narrative even stretching to hiring actors to pose as members of the public to support its falsehoods. It has never been prosecuted by Ofcom for doing this.

Ofcom failed to revoke Sky/BSkyB licences despite the News International phone-hacking scandal .

BBC / BBC Scotland broadcasts of Sturgeon’s coronavirus / Covid-19 daily briefings gave undue platform, breached impartiality or “platformed” SNP views without sufficient opposition response . Ofcom never prosecuted.

BBC misrepresented certain rulings or statements in relation to the International Court of Justice, and continued to do so even following corrections. Some complainants allege misleading framing. Ofcome never prosecuted.

Ofcom failed to investigate or sanction Panorama for its ‘Is Labour Antisemitic’ programme featuring distortions / zooming / face distorting of Corbyn”

In the BBC documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, critics noted that the narrator was the son of a Hamas official and argued that this conflict of interest / relation should have been disclosed; further, that viewers were misled by omission. Ofcom stated it would investigate , but the investigation did not surface.

With regards to websites such as 4chan - there have been NO high-profile prosecutions of UK-registered sites - instead it pursues content originating abroad.

MailOnline a website full of clickbait / false headlines: dozens of press regulator (IPSO) rulings, Ofcom has not acted on its “harmful content” policy.

The Telegraph & Express online purveyed misinformation during elections & health crises resulting in numerous complaints on social media, but Ofcom once again failed to act.

Ofcom should get its own house in order before pursuing websites that are funded and run in other countries - regardless of its perceived crimes.

I own, but do not operate, a few IT companies that manage corporations in the $600MM-$1B receivables range.

Based on our own help desk ticket software, our clients have opened 40% fewer tickets since ChatGPT was rolled out to every desk and phone. 40%. I expect another 40% drop (total 80%) by next year as end users just manage things themselves.

I won't downsize as the tickets aren't really generating revenue as much as headaches. One of my engineers had a broken PDF file that took her 6 hours to fix, and the end user spent 6 days trying to fix it themselves with Ai.

But -- the basic stuff? Reboot your computer stuff? Email rejected because you mistyped a domain name stuff?

You don't need a human, and we would probably have outsource that stuff to India anyway next year if not for ChatGPT etc.

I spend quite a bit on Discord server services, but I'm out.

GFY, Discord and governments, for mandating this bullshit nonsense.

If the Ember trend (solar+wind continuing to meet new electricity demand and strongly displace fossil generation) continues and scales up aggressively only in electricity, then by 2100 we’d likely avoid ~0.2–0.35 C of warming relative to a BAU electricity case — a useful and meaningful improvement, but not a return to pre-industrial “normal.” To actually reverse global temperature to pre-industrial levels would require removing thousands of gigatonnes of CO (net) — a feat that, at realistic removal rates, would take centuries to millennia.

A more interesting question I think is, does anyone own this AI actress?

That is to say - if a company took her likeness, and used other AI to make porn - could "her" agent sue them?

Or in other words, is a purely AI generated likeness even copyrightable, when technically no human made it?

Talking to people in public isnâ(TM)t harassment.

Talking to people on taxpayer funded grounds also isnâ(TM)t trespass.

Tax funded?

Not private property anymore.

This is the real problem - there is very little being produced that warrants the cost and inconveniece of the cinema experience.
If im going to watch another mediocre film im not going to make a special effort thats for sure.

EA does tend to put the same shit out every year with a new timestamp on it.

This Guardian piece leans heavily on the growth of big trees in pristine Amazon patches to paint a picture of resilience, but it’s misleading. Most of the forest is fragmented or deforested, and large areas are now net carbon emitters, not sinks. Highlighting a small subset of intact trees while downplaying widespread degradation risks greenwashing the crisis, giving readers a false sense that the Amazon is largely healthy and climate-positive. Protecting tiny pockets of mature forest does not offset the massive carbon losses from agriculture, fires, and road expansion.

You know its true.

The thing is only about 10 % of what Daily Mail rhetoric labels Illegal "Boat People" are as such, the actual number of illegals is incredibly small - the rest are legitimate asylum seekers coming to this vile racist country out of sheer desperation. I certainly wouldnt come here out of choice.
Dont fall for the propaganda that is shaping UK policy.

Keir Starmer dresses himself up as a safe pair of hands. But his digital ID scheme shows his true face: a weak, authoritarian stooge dancing to the Daily Mail’s tune.

He claims it will stop “boat people.” Nonsense.

The majority crossing the Channel are genuine refugees - Syrians, Afghans, Eritreans with asylum success rates as high as 99%.

Starmer knows this, yet still scapegoats the vulnerable to look “tough.”

What will digital ID really do?

It will turn Britain into a surveillance state where people of colour and migrants are harassed, stopped, and forced to prove their right to exist.

It’s not about security. It’s about institutionalising racism.

Starmer isn’t protecting Britain.

He’s protecting his headlines.

He isn’t standing up to right-wing media.

He’s taking dictation from them.

This isn’t leadership. It’s cowardice.

It exposes Starmer for what he really is: a hollow opportunist willing to trade freedom for fear.