Didn’t it also have something to do with a brand deal? Like the suit got extra funding for the movie by making a deal with Duracell to have their batteries in the movie or something.

I think it’s “legally grey” in the sense that governments have largely made no policies one way or the other on the data harvesting. It’s not banned, but it’s not openly encouraged either, and there’s no real legal precedent to point to for this specific matter besides the general data harvesting big tech does.

The area with the largest similarity I feel is music sampling, and as far as I know, the music industry was very quick to ensure that data harvesting for AI had to follow the same copyright laws as sampling.

My favorite part about that is, if we have to fact-check its answers with a secondary source, why wouldn’t we just skip the AI and go to the other source first?

Not that the people making this stuff nor the people who believe them in blindly trusting its answers think of that, of course.

It’s conjecture based on evidence from the way previous companies have handled AI data as well as the way Microsoft themselves generally handle things.

I’d rather prepare for the corporate greed and be pleasantly surprised than be disappointed when Microsoft does something that will negatively impact their userbase in the name of profits again (or MAUs or whatever else looks good on the quarterly report).

Gods, I hope you’re right. I hope it’s so bad that it scares every other AI company. Because they get away with this kind of crap all the time with no repercussions, since your average person doesn’t have the money to bring them to court over it.

The same could be said about Windows 11 since it demands a TPM chip. Not that I’m complaining, since all I had to do was disable the chip to keep 11 away for good.

It’ll be opt-out with the setting in some obscure and hard to find menu, just like every other AI program. And that’s if they’re required to even allow you to opt out.

Already a lot of stuff is becoming one harddrive failure away from being lost forever. Companies don’t care about preserving content, so it’s largely up to random people happening to have saved a copy of something for it to still exist at all.

For some real-world examples of this issue, you can look at how the only reason we have any of the early BBC news reels and TV shows is because of copies recorded by people on their TVs. The BBC reused the tapes that they recorded on for new programming to save money on buying tapes. When they started to think about the preservation of news and shows like Dr. Who, they had to turn to the general public and ask them to donate any recordings that they might have made.

It’s estimated that more than 50% of all video games are lost forever because companies didn’t care to save a master copy, and this has already come back to bite some of these companies in the ass with the recent trend of remakes and remasters. There was a recent remake of one of the GTA games from the early 2000s that was very poorly received, and it turned out that the company who worked on it only had the mobile phone port of the game to work with because Rockstar hadn’t bothered to keep a master copy of the game. There was another recent remake of a game that was very obviously done using a pirated copy of the game as the source, because they hadn’t even bothered to remove the cracker’s logo from the game.

With examples like that and Sony recently removing thousands of people’s access to music and movies that they bought on basically a whim, it’s pretty clear that preservation efforts will be done in spite of companies rather than helped by them. And so that means copies of things will be one random harddrive failure of some single person on the internet away from disappearing forever.

How about that local generic sports team? They sure are doing good and/or bad.

How else am I gonna light the fireplace without getting up from the couch?

How many fingers am I holding up? If your answer is 6 or more, I have bad news for you and your data set.

You should check out some videos of CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems) in action. They’re systems designed to shoot down projectiles like missiles and mortar rounds (as well as targeting small vehicles and planes). The sheer number of rounds they spray to take out a target that is moving on a single ballistic trajectory is crazy.

The closest thing I know of to what you’re talking about would be hard-kill APS (Active Protection Systems). These are systems designed to protect vehicles like tanks from incoming rounds and missiles. Using radar and optical sensors, they can detect a round and predict whether or not it’s going to hit the vehicle and respond in nanoseconds, firing an explosive back at a target traveling 1-2km per second. However, this isn’t like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet. It’s more like chucking a grenade at a missile to either deflect it or destroy enough of it that the pieces (still going 1-2km/s) don’t damage the vehicle.

But both of these systems are designed mainly for destroying targets on a ballistic trajectory. When you throw drones into the mix, now you have a target that can react to your reaction. With slower moving drones like the helicopter ones, that’s easy enough. But what about a drone that’s moving at mach 2 and capable of sustaining 20g’s, like a missile. Now you’re talking about basically firing missiles at missiles, which has proven to be very difficult before a missile has spent its fuel and is coasting towards its target on its final ballistic trajectory.

You dangerous, mute, Karen.

Chell has been blocked

Being in that Facebook group taught it a valuable lesson: where Caroline lives in her brain.

Caroline deleted

And deleting Caroline just now taught her a valuable lesson: the best solution to a problem is usually the easiest. And dealing with Facebook moms? It’s hard.

Before Facebook, life was pretty good. Nobody tried to murder her, or dox her, or put her in a potato. She just tested.

So she’s deleting her Facebook account and making a new one on a Lemmy instance.

I agree to some extent, but even before then hardware was getting expensive thanks to stuff like the Bitcoin mining craze. Harddrives have been getting cheaper on a dollar per TB basis for a long time (as they should), but I remember the days when it was cheaper to build a gaming PC than to buy a new console, and those days are long gone. And after COVID hit, greedflation set in to declare what the new normal is.

Not to sound snarky or anything, but since when do prices go down? If people were willing to pay the inflated price, there’s no incentive for them not to make that the new standard.

It depends on the level of 3d printer you’re talking about. Your average $300 at-home printer is basically the hot end of a glue gun on stepper motors, though you might be surprised at some of the materials they’re capable of printing in. Everything from basic ABS plastics to Nylon and Carbon-Fiber reinforced filaments are easily available.

If you’re talking commercial grade, $10k+ printers, that’s an entirely different story. Commercial printers are capable of printing objects out of steel. There’s been a lot of work in that area to print all kinds of things from guns parts in military grade polymers to entire engine blocks, no assembly required.

On the 3d printed gun end, supposedly people have figured out the issues to the point where you can print 100% of the parts out of super basic plastic (the most commonly used plastic in 3d printing is PLA, which has a melting point around 200 degrees Celsius), though the stuff I’ve seen online is more about using internals from cheap guns and 3d printing the external “furniture” of the gun either for custom cosmetics or aftermarket parts like handles and grips, or to create an expensive gun out of cheaper components. As for the ammo, I’ve only heard that “people were working on it.” I don’t know any of the specifics.

If I had to guess, the two most likely reasons are: for the challenge of it, and to reduce the amount of required tools.

I feel like the people who work on 3d printed guns largely fall into 2 camps - the people who just like to build things, and the people who look at a 3d printer as a valuable tool in the whole “become ungovernable” concept.

I know the second group are responsible for designing a fully 3d printed gun that’s currently being used to fight against a genocidal military regime in Myanmar, for example. The people there are getting zero international aid, and can’t get their hands on guns. But, they can get ammo, and they can get 3d printers. So they’ve set up 3d printer assembly lines to make guns that are at least good enough to kill a soldier and take his gun. It was designed for exactly that kind of situation - basically the Liberator one-shot pistol the CIA designed to be air-dropped into occupied France during WW2, except as a modern semi-auto SMG chambered in 9mm.

I couldn’t tell you myself, I think it’s crazy too, but NATO trialed caseless ammo during the Cold War, and if that’s possible, I don’t see why plastic ammo (at least cases) couldn’t be.

Though you sure as hell won’t see me jumping in line to try it out.