They can’t. Of course, they can’t really do it on a remote server either but they choose to pretend they can. If they really wanted to, they could run it through a machine learning system on your phone and just send the result to discord. That wouldn’t be secure, strictly speaking, but it would be good enough for this purpose. The kind of model they could send to a phone wouldn’t be very reliable, but that’s the problem they have anyway so nothing of value is lost
Given that we’re discussing the behaviour of phones, I’m quite certain that there was never a time when they generally had line out ports. Also, I can’t imagine people are connecting their Bluetooth speakers to the wrong interface.
What you’re describing is still wishful thinking, because there’s no world where every consumer device is going to have accurately calibrated volume regardless of whether there’s a protocol which specifies it.
That’s pure wishful thinking. The vast majority of users wouldn’t even know what line level is, and you can’t expect end users to have audio engineering expertise. You also can’t expect anyone other than an audiophile or actual audio engineer to be able to get alll of their consumer electronics conform to such a standard
Agreed, perfectly reasonable precaution so long as it’s possible to calibrate it per device
I get really irritated when my phone limits volume with a notification like this, because the phone has no idea what hardware I have playing the sound. They’ve made some unfounded assumption about how loud 80% volume actually is, and interrupt whatever I’m doing to complain about it
I don’t think sake could serve the role beer did, historically. Certainly in medieval Europe, they made what today would be considered a weak beer to drink for basic hydration. That was by far the easiest way for them to ensure the water was safe to drink.
I’m pretty sure if you tried that with sake, you’d die
Oh yeah. I didn’t even spot that the cop was a bear
Is there a layer missing? The joke seems to revolve around a shadow which isn’t there
I imagine he means things like Chromebook, rather than Chromebook itself. Mass-market consumer hardware which comes with Linux by default
The safety designed into Rust is suddenly foreign to the C family that I’m honestly not sure you can do that. Even “unsafe” Rust doesn’t completely switch off the enforced safety
Those two things aren’t being claimed by the same people.
There are people with functioning brains, who are aware that AI is shit at programming, and there are managers who have been sold a sales pitch and believe that they can replace half of their software engineers.
AI doesn’t actually need to be effective to cost a bunch of jobs, it just needs to have good salespeople. Those jobs will come back when the businesses which decided to rely on AI discover the hole they’ve dug for themselves. That might not be quick though, because there’s no rule saying that major businesses will have competent leaders with good foresight.
There are a million ways to back data up, many of them are as simple as “copy it to removable media”, and don’t require any clever operating system features at all.
What removable media you can use depends on the quantity of data, and how long you need the backup to last. Maybe DVDs, or USB drives. If the data is valuable enough, you can also pay for cloud storage and upload it
The point of this sort of thing is to attract public attention, not to directly persuade the authorities.
They might not care about the starving prisoner, but they’re much more likely to care about the general public turning on them.
How effective it will actually be in this case I couldn’t say, but historically it worked very well for the women’s rights movement.
The reason I tend to object to these things is that bikeshedding isn’t free, it creates work and technical debt. That raises the bar for changes we ought to make, and I think it raises it quite a lot higher than objections which are frequently specific to the US and are largely imaginary (which is my honest interpretation of most of these changes).
That said, “genocide” is clearly unnecessarily provocative. It’s also not an industry-wide change, it’s just one function, so this particular change seems sensible to me
Be cautious about trusting the AI-detection tools, they’re not much better than the AI they’re trying to detect, because they’re just as prone to false positives and false negatives as the agents they claim to detect.
It’s also inherently an arms race, because if a tool exists which can easily and reliably detect AI generated content then they’d just be using that tool for their training instead of what they already use, and the AI would quickly learn to defeat it. They also wouldn’t be worrying about their training data being contaminated by the output of existing AI, Which is becoming a genuine problem right now
Perhaps, but they do still need to know who’s going to be absent even if they’re going to approve it either way
An experimental capability being kicked out of the kernel, so that it has to settle for being a kernel module or custom forks of the kernel, is absolutely a minor matter
This is a non-issue, being over-reported by people looking for clicks. A minor technical matter being handled by the person ultimately responsible for handling such things
No, I’m arguing that the extra complexity is something to avoid because it creates new attack surfaces, new opportunities for bugs, and is very unlikely to accurately deal with all of the edge cases.
Especially when you consider that the behaviour we have was established way before there even was a unicode standard which could have been applied, and when the alternative you want isn’t unambiguously better than what it does now.
“What is language” is a far more insightful question than you clearly intended, because our collective best answer to that question right now is the unicode standard, and even that’s not perfect. Making the very core of the filesystem have to deal with that is a can of worms which a competent engineer wouldn’t open without very good reason, and at best I’m seeing a weak and subjective reason here.
Yellowstone would really suck, but it would suck differently than nuclear winter.
For starters, I don’t think it would be directly catastrophic on the other side of the world. The Americas would be pretty fucked, but some places would probably only see climate problems rather than the actual end of days.
Also, nuclear winter would include nuclear fallout. It would involve far less actual material coming out of the sky, but what it did bring would be poison in a way which volcanic ash wouldn’t really match (not to say volcanic eruptions aren’t poisonous, but they’re not persistently and insidiously poisonous like radioactive decay could be)