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.

To be fair, we can have our own data centres without allowing them to have priority over our clean safe drinking water. It’s not just a crazy tree hugging green view that people should come before AI and data hosting (especially when the data centres are largely being used for surveillance, and not for the divestment from US data centres). This is obvious because we continue selling NHS, criminal justice and welfare data to US businesses and opting for the trans-atlantic subscription model instead of using UK companies (unless Tony Blair’s son has shares in them ofc).

Madlads. First they outlawed antifascist sentiment (Antifa), now they come for the anti-genocide (Palestine Action). What next I wonder

Andy Burnham has registered accepting £345,000 of donations over the past year including £164,347 from businessman Lord Sainsbury.

Less of a u turn, more of a lie with no genuine intent.

The last couple of lines has me thinking this is satirical/sarcasm:

“…Following his embarrassing slip-up in February, Sutter vowed that he works “differently now” and is ready to immediately “distrust” anything an AI says” and “…when we pasted his latest piece for Nautilus into AI detecting tool Pangram — which is far from perfect — it informed us that 56 percent of the text appeared to be written by an AI”.

Very good point. We may as well have that beer instead of the occasional sugary drink. Similar carb count to tax ratio.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Genuinely what of the damage to our parents generation? They are susceptible to dangers and manipulation and other dangers on social media. If we all agree that social media is probably a bit shit - shit enough that we should protect children from its harm - then why should we not enact some protections for everyone else too?