
that just sounds like they’re accelerating towards the dystopia, things will get a lot worse before OpenAI collapses
i agree on both points. but do you think it would be better if their existence is prolonged somehow?
i mean, if you don't think this development is good news, what sort of news about openai would you think is?
unless you're actually using their services, i don't see how them doing the thing they said they'd only do as a "last resort" is anything other than good news. (and if you are using their services, maybe the ads will encourage you to stop? so, still: good news)
yeah, them doing what they said in 2024 that they would only do as a last resort is indeed good news
In Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), the Court sustained a conviction under a federal statute punishing the mailing of "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy . . ." materials. The key to that holding was the Court's rejection of the claim that obscene materials were protected by the First Amendment. Five Justices joined in the opinion stating:
"All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance -- unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion -- have the full protection of the [First Amendment] guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. . . . This is the same judgment expressed by this Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 315 U. S. 571-572: "
". . . There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene. . . . It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ."
[Emphasis by Court in Roth opinion.]
No, SVG files are not HTML.
~~Please change this post title (currently "today i learned: svg files are literally just html code"), to avoid spreading this incorrect factoid!~~
~~I suggest you change it to "today i learned: svg files are just text in an html-like language" or something like that.~~ edit: thanks OP
XML and HTML have many similarities, because they both are descendants of SGML. But, as others have noted in this thread, HTML is also not XML. (Except for when it's XHTML...)
Like HTML, SVG also can use CSS, and, in some environments (eg, in browsers, but not in Inkscape) also JavaScript. But, the styles you can specify with CSS in SVG are quite different than those you can specify with CSS in HTML.
Lastly, you can embed SVG in HTML and it will work in (modern) browsers. You cannot embed HTML in SVG, however.
shoutout to the person who reported this post with "Reason: Bot meme, you can't even read it. whoever replies is a bot too" 😂
the famous "This incident will be reported" error was briefly removed last year before being replaced with a less ominous version.
I'm disappointed in arstechnica for only supporting their provocative headline (Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine) with this vagueness in the article:
While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine. He also appeared unclear about how SEM works and struggled to understand the options for Microsoft to promote Bing ads outside of Google's SEM tools.
What did he actually say?!



