That is the worst site I’ve seen in a long time. Do yourself a favor and add

www.verticalfarmdaily.com###zijkant
www.verticalfarmdaily.com###banners_zijkant

to your uBlock rules before following the link. If you don’t have a way to block elements, may $diety have mercy on your soul.

Then it’s a cat-and-mouse game between the anti-adblock tech and the anti-anti-adblock tech.

My money (not literally though :) is on the anti-anti-adblock tech. That can be crowdsourced and generally adapts much faster than big companies.

Probably the furthest man made object from Earth at this point for sure.

The article says “Scientists believe compression heating caused the cap to vaporize as it sped through the atmosphere.”

Fans? Customers yeah, but fans?

They actually did at one point, but they threw it all away.

The article seems to repeat the same stuff over and over again.

On Lemmy, a popular social networking site, user KerfuffleV2 astutely noted that the article repeated points that had already been stated in the article.

“It seems like the article repeated the same content multiple times” said KerfuffleV2, a user on the social networking site Lemmy. “Perhaps they get paid by the word.” the user added.

A rather uncreative article on thestreet.com triggered some snarky online comments including one from a user named KerfuffleV2. This user noted that the article repeated the same content multiple times.

Pretty sure it’s mainly non-furry non-gay hackers that take down the majority of websites.

From dealing with their support in the past and stuff they’ve accommodated, I wouldn’t be surprised if you could just ask them to do it for a small amount like that. If you do a web search, you can also find a lot of information and people claiming it’s possible to do stuff like transfer it to a Paypal account, etc.

I haven’t tried to do that personally, so maybe it really just isn’t possible. It’s still only something that will affect someone that’s never going to spend money at Amazon again, right? If I’m going to spend $5.99 at some point, it’s effectively the same as a cash refund for me. If I’m going to spend $10.99 at some point it’s almost the same as getting double the refund, since I would have spent cash instead in those cases.

Do we need to be more efficient?

I mean, it’s usually a beneficial thing. Using less resources (including land) to produce the same amount of food is probably going to mean less environmental damage. In the case of switching to vat grown meat it also means not torturing billions of animals every year.

We have the resources to feed everyone on Earth and have leftovers

Sure. No one starves because the food just isn’t on this planet, they starve because the people who have it won’t give it to them. That said, we’re also not using resources very sustainably so saying we produce enough food currently isn’t the same as saying we can continue this way.

We could also increase efficiency even further by reducing meat/dairy consumption.

I don’t eat any animal products so you can probably guess this is something I’m strongly in favor of as well!

Anyway, I was just responding to what I quoted not specifically arguing for 3d-printed foods. Depending on how it’s implemented, it may or may not be better environmentally than the status quo

I agree it’s still better than walking away empty handed, but let’s not pretend that got their money back.

In the rare case the person has just stopped spending money at Amazon, I guess. For anyone that’s spending $10/month, it’s effectively the same as cash. (Also, you probably can transfer the credit to a bank account if you really want to.)

Like, those cells will require the same nutrients and same growing conditions, and they naturally 3D print themselves into the shape of themselves.

They’ll also naturally use the nutrients and energy to 3D print stuff that’s not useful to humans, like leaves, roots, flowers, etc. Basically this is how vat grown vegetables, meat, etc, can potentially be more efficient than the typical approach.

Easily hour+ long headache on your first time.

Whenever I read this kind of thing (and people seem to say it pretty often), it seems really weird to me. Same goes for complaining about distro installers. An hour of possible headache/irritation and then you use the machine for years. Obviously it would be better if stuff was easy, but an hour just seems insignificant in the scheme of things. I really just don’t understand seeing it as an actual roadblock.

(Of course, there are other situations where it could matter like if you had to install/maintain 20 machines, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.)

One thing is the pace is very, very consistent. Real humans don’t usually maintain that level of consistency, they’ll speed up, slow down, some words come out fast, some come out slow, etc.

Maybe I misunderstood you but my point was if it interpreted the language preferences I set in the normal config as “knowing” the languages I added and didn’t offer translations, that wouldn’t necessarily be what I want.

The languages I might want to see aren’t necessarily the ones I know. People who are learning languages might set that (I did for the language I’m learning, anyway).

I’m sure there’s a way to disable it, even if you have to go into about:config

The timing and similarity highly suggests this is a problem with how almost all software has implemented the webp standard in its image processing software.

Did you read the article or the post? The point was that both places where the vulnerability was found probably used libwepb. So it’s not that there’s something inherently vulnerable in handling webp, just that they both used the same library which had a vulnerability. (Presumably the article was a little vague about the Apple side because the source wasn’t open/available.)

given that the programs processing images often have escalated privileges.

What? That sounds like a really strange thing to say. I guess one could argue it’s technically true because browsers can be considered “a program that processes images” and a browser component can end up in stuff with escalated privileges. That’s kind of a special case though and in general there’s no reason for the vast majority of programs that process images to have special privileges.

“This time you’re going to love Cortana. For reals!”

Feet are like hands we walk on. Right? Complete with a thumb and all!

People that love to read only the title. What could be better than a bunch of titles in a row?

As a general statement: No, I am not.

You didn’t qualify what you said originally. It either has the capability or not: you said it didn’t, it actually does.

You’re making an over specific scenario to make it true.

Not really. It isn’t that far-fetched that a company would see an artist they’d like to use but also not want to pay that artist’s fees so they train an AI on the artist’s portfolio and can churn out very similar artwork. Training it on one or two images is obviously contrived, but a situation like what I just mentioned is very plausible.

This entire counter argument is nothing more than being pedantic.

So this isn’t true. What you said isn’t accurate with the literal interpretation and it doesn’t work with the more general interpretation either. The person higher in the thread called it stealing: in that case it wasn’t, but AI models do have the capability to do what most people would probably call “stealing” or infringing on the artist’s rights. I think recognizing that distinction is important.

Furthermore, if I’m making such specific instructions to the AI, then I am the one who’s replicating the art.

Yes, that’s kind of the point. A lot of people (me included) would be comfortable calling doing that sort of thing stealing or plagiarism. That’s why the company in OP took pains to say they weren’t doing that.