If they mistake those electronic parrots for conscious intelligencies, they probably won’t be the best judges for rating such things.

They have a bunch of display ports and HDMIs. You can buy the tuner you need (SAT, OTA, cable, other streamer), or use a PC&Linux and watch YT add-free.

Oh, they do have products without all that shit. They offer large screen monitors that are basically their TVs without the “smart” part.

The cabinet of president Trump is not known for their skills with the subjects they deal with, but for their willingness to kiss his ass.

As being politically right is based mostly on ignoring facts, this sounds about right.

So this is how he tries to escape problems with his banks. Lets see how xAI is rated as collateral for his credits.

I did such a thing, but I had a big advantage: the codebase had been done by people who had never really learned to code, and I was a seasoned programmer with 20 years of experience.

You are either naive or new to this planet. If you tell industry that this or that thing is voluntary, it will definitely not happen. There must be thousands of examples out there. “Voluntary” regulation never worked on this planet.

If you want industry to do something, there is the stupid way of bribing them into it, and the smart way of simply forcing them to comply. If you do the latter, they will still squirm, complain, and demand money (loads of money!) to follow the law. If you forgot to define fines for non-compliance or made them too small, they won’t follow the law, either, of course, so the fines have to be painful enough so they can’t just file them away as “costs of doing business”.

Like the one tested by Mark Rober?

Then stop reporting useless baby steps for a change, and come back if they have something real to show?

The idea is not to have three worthless announcements per week. They can get better all they want, and come back once they have tangible results.

I.e. just another worthless quantum benchmark.

Of course. Not a single quantum computer has done anything but test programs and quantum-specific benchmarks. Until a quantum computer finally does something a normal computer regularly does, but faster, we should simply ignore this area.

EDIT: could the downvoters state a single occasion where a quantum computer outmatched a normal computer on a real problem. And with that I mean something more elaborate than winning naughts and crosses, or something like that.

Again, it has been shown that a quantum computer is better than a normal computer in solving worthless quantum benchmarks. Hurray.

I still wait for any quantum computer solving a real problem like those normal computers solve every day.

wrecks the thing I care most about: copying and pasting details that I need to write articles. Instead, I often get garbled, shortened pieces of other parts of the document intermingled with the text I want—assuming I can even select it in the first place.

There are two things doing this: PDF optimisation and document obfuscation.

The Optimisation thing is something I’ve seen with many Asian PDFs. If they want to use a non-standard font, and want the document to actually use it, they have to embed it into the PDF, potentially blowing it up size-wise. In comes the optimiser: It looks which of the thousands of glyphs of that Asian language are actually used in that document, and creates a new font with only those glyphs. This font has a totally different numbering scheme from the original font, so it also replaces the numbers in the document that represent those glyphs. Result: A much smaller PDF. It looks the same, it prints the same. You can still “copy” the characters, but as their only meaning is related to the internal representation of the font, you cannot past them into e.g. Google Translate. It’s just gibberish.

Example: The text is “Jack and Jill”, and the numbers in the document representing those characters would be ASCII/UNICODE: 74 97 99 107 32 97 110 100 32 74 105 108 108 (74 being ‘J’, 97 being ‘a’, etc.). This is standard and works basically everywhere. The optimizer sees the letters " Jacdikln" (sorted) and assigns them numbers starting with e.g. 0 for " " (space), 1 for “J”, etc. The images for all other characters are thrown away, as they are not needed. The internal numbers for the text are now 1 2 3 6 0 2 8 4 0 1 5 7 7, which are not standard ASCII/UNICODE, and copying them to another application would just result in problems.

The Obfuscation is often done by putting additional text in the background color behind the main text. You cannot see it, it does not show up in prints, but when you select a piece of text, it gets copied along, if you like it or not.

So you see “Jack and Jill” in black, but behind it is “went up the hill” in white, and you copy something like “Jacwentk upandth hiell”.

Best laws money can buy!

Lets put it the other way round: there are a lot of people in social networks who are dumb enough that them being overtaken by an AI is no real surprise.

And 58.82% are likely generated by human junk then.

Hmm, “the junk human users are posting”, or “the human junk users are posting”? We are talking about Facebook here, after all.

They are afraid. Very afraid. Good.