Most of them at least (misguidedly) think they are doing the best thing for themselves/the country. Non-voters just couldn’t be bothered to take any responsibility at all.

That is the length of an average successful marriage, yes.

Maybe I should have started all this by saying I’m not an airport expert. I’m a dude who has flown on planes before.

I’ve always understood the terminal to be the waiting area that the plane pulls up too—in other words, the journey terminates at the terminal gate. Yes, I have only ever seen that area assessable after you’ve passed security—at least it’s been that way post 9/11.

If there is some nuance here where a terminal includes some parts outside of security, just say that. The tone I perceive in your post seems to be trying to make me look like a fool, and I don’t appreciate it.

I’m sure theirs are privately owned.

This person seems to have invaded your privacy, but the snippets of their comments make it seem like they were (at least originally) well intentioned and trying to find information about your husband and legal situation. They told you how easily they found information on you and exactly how they did it—this furthers my point that you can avoid this type of thing by modifying your own posting habits.

In my opinion, from the limited evidence in this screenshot, the other person needs a warning and you need a crash course in basic online safety.

Again, just to be clear, anybody who doxxes or stalks someone is in the wrong and should be held accountable. Likewise, we should all be accountable for our safety and privacy online also.

When you’re the president, you get your documents served up however you damn well please. While it may seem ridiculous on the surface, it is much better to have information delivered to the president in a format that he/she is comfortable with rather than having valuable seconds wasted in a crisis because Donny or Joe doesn’t know how to get their PDF window open again.

Furthermore, new technologies often introduce new vulnerabilities. Keeping things old school is actually a relatively effective security technique.

Basically, presidents are usually creatures of their time, and that time is often prehistoric.

I’m not feeling anything personally because I didn’t go to the art exhibit—I’m just a person reading news stories on Lemmy.

I have been discriminated against for my gender, race, and sexual orientation before. It’s humiliating. I imagine I would also feel a bit humiliated at being turned away from a museum due to my gender.

In general, making people feel like shit for who they are has no positive function in any public space, and I’d prefer it if we simply left those behaviors in the past entirely.

Everything I have read about how LLM’s work suggest that you’re giving them too much credit. Their “thinking” is heavily based on studied examples to the point that they don’t seem capable of original “thought”.

For instance, there was a breakdown of the capabilities of some new imaging models the other day (one of the threads on DB0) that showed that none of the tested models were able to produce a cube balanced on a sphere because there were simply too few examples of a cubic object balancing on a spherical one in its learning model. When asked to show soldiers, the ones that could produce more accurate images could not produce accurate diversity because their improved rendering was due to it drawing from a more limited, and thus less creative, dataset. The result was that it kept looking like it had a specific soldier “in mind” rather than an understanding of soldiers in general.

These things would be trivial for even a child to do, though they may not be able to produce the “uncanny valley” effect that AI is good at. If a kid knows what a cube is, knows what a sphere is, and understands the request, they can easily draw a cube on a sphere without having seen an example of that specific thing before.

I agree that the parrot analogy isn’t correct, but neither is the idea that these things will learn from their own echo chamber in the way you have described. Maybe the idea of dreaming is more accurate—an unusual shuffling of input to make bizzaro results that don’t have any intrinsic meaning at all beyond their relation to the data that is being used.

Real women use VPN’s. /s

Is there such a thing as an ad sequesterer? Not necessarily blocking it, but just shoving it in some other window I can’t see, and then letting it play through. Then YouTube gets its ad played, and I don’t have to see it—win/win.

“Lolz, what union?” - My Boss

I’ve been sort of bothered by the uptick of rudeness and combativeness on lemmy lately. When I first got here, it felt like everyone assumed positive intent from each other most of the time, but recently it feels like that shifted. I hope I just got unlucky and it isn’t a bigger trend overall.