This is an AI channel. I’m not sure if you’re innocently sharing or trying to build organic interactions for it, but please at least be clear it’s AI. The videos are not appropriately tagged as such.

This is an AI channel. I’m not sure if you’re innocently sharing or trying to build organic interactions for it, but please at least be clear it’s AI. The videos are not appropriately tagged as such.

This is an AI channel. I’m not sure if you’re innocently sharing or trying to build organic interactions for it, but please at least be clear it’s AI. The videos are not appropriately tagged as such.

1. This wasn’t journalism.

2. This does not happen all the time with journalism.

3. A correction doesn’t fix this. Unlike with actual journalism, the problem is with the AI and not with a specific output.

The original Bloomberg article is quite informative.

California was the only state in Bloomberg’s review that did not use advertising trackers, having removed them last year after being informed of the security risk by nonprofit news organizations CalMatters and The Markup. A separate Markup analysis of 19 state sites last year also flagged data exposures in several states that later changed some of their settings.

According to Edwards, one reason so many websites continue to share sensitive user data is that website operators deploy tracking tools without fully understanding how they work. “The onus is on them to do it safely,” he said. “You can’t protect something that you don’t understand.”

If anyone has looked into Google ads at all, the first thing they try to get you to do is install a bunch of trackers on your website. In order to do that you have to check a box that says you have a privacy policy which discloses certain information. If you try to tell them you do not have that and do not want to do tracking they will outright lie about what they are getting you to do. They tell you to just check the box and that it doesn’t matter and then will tell you that it doesn’t track anything. One would hope that the people doing these sites for the government would know better, but they may also just not care. They may just be using a standard SEO suite and no one bothered to mention that maybe they shouldn’t on either the government side or the company side.

At least the banking information likely belonged to the people that bought the glasses. It’s very possible that people have unknowingly had sex with people wearing these glasses and now not only does a sex tape exist of them, it was also sent to help train AI and other people have seen it too.

Not being happy about it doesn’t mean he did anything to at least lessen harm. He admits to engaging in “pranks” where they cut open all of the watermelons of someone who was on their way to sell them. That’s just stealing. He stole someone’s livelihood, which also happened to be food in a place actively being denied food.

I’m glad he didn’t do it giddily, but that probably makes no difference to the person who was driving. I’m glad he sees that he was a pawn, but there is no apparent understanding of the real harm he caused. He seems more focused on how it affected him and not how he affected others. I don’t see him talking about how bad the IDF is openly, and he’s vague posting about how he’s actually just misunderstood. If people watch the boys or not I don’t really care, but this guy is an asshole.

To a certain extent, I understand where you’re coming from, and it doesn’t surprise me we had a black president before a female president, but Hillary won the popular vote. I think if Hillary didn’t have an already well established hate campaign against her and was not carrying the Bill Clinton baggage, she would’ve won. I think Elizabeth Warren would have done well had she not had to contend with the more progressive Bernie.

I think people forgot what Trump was like and people were suffering economically under Biden and there wasn’t enough acknowledgment of that. I think had Warren been the pick instead of Biden the first time she would have won. Biden was a filler episode as a president and people wanted someone willing to do something, or at least give them the appearance of having done something. Trump does a great job of that.

Anyone can cherry pick reasons one way or the other.

Trump was impeached.

He was found guilty of sexual misconduct (rape).

He was besties with a pedo and there’s plenty of evidence he himself is one.

He attempted to impede a peaceful transfer of power.

She lost to convicted felon and sex pest who was already impeached. It’s the fault of the American people as much as her own, but that’s embarrassing regardless.

Though this doesn’t seem like a valid application of TAS, I’ll bite.

A calculator can do your math homework for you, but that doesn’t mean the homework is useless. It means that if you don’t follow the rules the work is useless. Just because something with no understanding can complete a task doesn’t mean a human with no understanding can. It is built to test a human, not a computer, and it generally does so well enough provided the human is the one doing the work.

I think we’re making the same point. The comment I responded to called it a religious organization and I was making the point that it’s much more than that. Though I tried to add the caveat that even religions that don’t have full blown governments likely have stances on politics and diplomacy.

The Vatican is not a religious organization. It’s a sovereign city-state. It has territory it governs with a government and government positions. Most religions have things to say about diplomacy and politics even if they don’t have a head of state though. The issue is that Trump doesn’t like what the pope has to say.

Isaak was a defense attorney for three of the January 6 Capitol rioters (she later withdrew from two of the cases), and she also helped Alabama Republican Roy Moore dismiss a defamation suit from a woman who said he molested her when she was 14.

What a gem! Glad she’s out there making herself valuable to men. What a horrifying (but worth the read) article.

Oh, for sure. And I really should’ve known better. No offense taken.

Yes, but also I have to draw a line somewhere. I have a daily backup process. Some data is backed up to multiple places. I have backups of my backups. I cannot ensure that all three of the daily backups I run are fully restorable. I would love to know with 100% certainty that they all execute perfectly, but at the end of the day I have to trust the tools and processes I put in place for backups. A yearly checkup is probably more than sufficient for my purposes. I’m sure for certain businesses or sectors they need to be more on top of things, but I could manage just fine if all of it disappeared tomorrow. It wouldn’t be awesome for me, but it’d be manageable.

Not to give myself more credit than I deserve, but I did test them upon setup, and had restored from backup 2 years ago. I didn’t have any ongoing checks other than to ensure a backup happened. I have since instituted yearly checks of the backups themselves, but I did feel dumb when I realized how vulnerable my data was.

Plenty still think it’s flat now so I’d allow it regardless, but most sources suggest <3000 years of people believing this, much less having the math or physics to back it up.

I don’t want to sound like a know it all here because I recently was reminded by a nice Lemmy person to actually TEST my backups, but damn. Every part of that is so dumb. I also have backups stored by a different company in addition to locally storing really important info. If your stuff is hosted and backed up by the same people, what happens if your account is randomly suspended or hacked or some other issue (like ai)?

I think they are suggesting lying to other people (out of shame/embarrassment) not lying to meta. If they are out on a date for example, would they worry that this potential partner would judge them for working at meta and not want to continue with the relationship?

Is anyone with a legal background able to explain how this does “not violate either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause of the first amendment”? It certainly seems like it would. Edited for clarity.