hence the word “seek”

That includes Amazon, right?
…right?

Yeah that’s fucking bullshit. Mcdonalds isn’t very cheap at all.

UwUntu

oh come on, thats a nitpick if I ever saw one.

We’re generally discussing two alternatives: noon att zenith(ish) vs noon at zenith(ish) - 1hour

Sure, well just solve this problems how we have already solved it. Something along the lines of a mean or median value.

uh, why not?

good luck with that, danskjävlar.

12 is at suns zenith, done.

If we want to adjust our working hours, we can do that, no need to change the clock itself.

in winter you go to work in the dark and come home in the dark, meaning you don’t see any daylight apart from at weekends,

That’s already my reality as it stands

On the contrary. They can hide this kind of thing in the numbers. Reporting on egregious individual cases has a chance to heighten awareness.

On a positive note, that kind of claim has been struck down in Canada before.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/19/what-air-canada-lost-in-remarkable-lying-ai-chatbot-case/

Nah, a democratic nation has to follow its own laws. It looks much better if they revoke it with proof after due process.

did they expect any different? Why would anyone on Greenland be aligned with someone who threatened to invade you?

A few friends of mine used to have a sms-based group chat we used for many years. One of those friends kept losing phones and getting new numbers. At some point one of his older numbers texted something to the tune of “what the fuck is this, why are you texting me?!”. It turns out the old number had been reassigned.

then again, no state secrets were exchanged.

What’s the point of a summary that’s longer than the article itself?

Me neither. I would have thought this was exactly the kind of situation impeachment was meant to stop. I am thoroughly confused.

two words: presidential pardon.

No one will spend the time, money and effort to prosecute these people when they can just wave the whole thing away with a signature.

hmm, true enough. But in my mind there’s a clear difference between showing information unedited and referring to its source, and this.

That’s a good point, that muddies the waters a bit. Makes it hard to say wether it’s spouting info from the web or if it’s data from the model.

I can’t comment on actual legality in this case, but I feel handling personal data like this, even from the open web, in a context where hallucinations are an overwhelming possibility, is still morally wrong. I don’t know the GDPR well enough to say wether it covers temporary information like this, but I kinda hope it does.