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.

Interesting that you immediately jumped to censorship. Why is that?

The muh freeze peach crowd are about the worst defenders of free speech I've ever met.

Speech is powerful and dangerous, which is why it is important and needs to be free. Pretending otherwise is to diminish it and erase the need for it to be protected.

that's an impressive list of differences. i'd like to see a side-by-side

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.

Anything that challenges your assumptions must be a joke. Therefore you never need to change your mind on anything!

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.

Coll story bro. Got a citation for that "fact"?

What's the difference between the idea and the concept?

Never thought of epoch time! The ultimate revenge of the nerds! 8^)

During the longest days many of the outside contractors in my area tend to tie their workday to the light/dark cycle. There are times here in PA where it is getting light at 4 in the morning! That's like bonus time toward meeting the schedule. And you are correct about the heat. We have the added humidity (it hung around 100 percent this past summer) Upper 80's and 100 percent humidity plays hell on construction workers.

Although it is mainly a transfer of energy use. But what makes me laugh is just how the intersection of solipsism and stupidity runs so deep in these matters.

Even the name "Sunshine Protection Act" the hill politicians have chosen to die on, is 100 percent wrong. The amount of sunshine in any 24 hour cycle is a matter of physics, not something politicians can vote on.

But a person who gets up at 7:00 A.M. and works a day shift. sees how it is light longer in the summer, and is stupid, thinks that all that is needed is to keep DST, and the day will be longer. And their solipsism has them thinking everyone else would benefit from that. I meant who could oppose a longer day? There are times here when it is getting light at 4 in the morning. Then it makes some sense to shift, people who work outside like that, especially in temperate zones. Hours wasted in the morning, unless you want to start work at 4 AM. But on the other end of the stick, if DST becomes permanent, in my area, during December and January, sunrise will happen around 0830, with 0835 being the latest. And I'm in PA. Around 40 degrees North, not even halfway up the latitudes.

But the solipsists don't care, and stupid is not fixable.

That's not how LLMs work. While they are trained on existing data, they are also capable of reasoning. They can produce novel solutions to problems.

Just because they don't work the same way as a the human brain doesn't mean that they are not capable of this sort of thing.

Leap hours are just a legal thing to satisfy countries that require UT to be synchronized with the orbit of the Earth around the sun. There won't be one for centuries, i.e. it's so far out that it can be ignored.

Why not both?

I means Google clearly doesn't think it's likely they'll need that level of power in the near future... but they cannot tell their investors that, since that would sound like they are quitting out of the AI race.

So the obvious solution is to make contracts with a company that will, most likely, never provide a service economically. Nobody has ever operated a nuclear power plant without heavy subsidies, and using old equipment that's long out of its desired life-span doesn't make it more economical. On the other side there are now a lot cheaper and simpler alternatives like solar, wind and battery storage. Look at the prices for solar panels, look at the prices for batteries. Nuclear will most likely never be able to come close to the economics of renewables. That ship has sailed in the last decade or so.

So in a few years, when the hype has died down, and we need much less data centers, Google will just be able to quietly back out, since Constellation Energy will most likely, not have delivered on their promise. Everyone is happy then, and the amount of money wasted is minimal.