But at some point, it’ll either generate original content on its own, or rely on content already created by other AI.

What you’re describing there is called model collapse and it’s not a good thing. A generative AI ouroboros accumulates error until its output is useless.

Good news! You can buy Murder Harem: Furry’s Vore Safari Edition (if that’s what you’re into) on Steam and nobody would ever know as long as you mark it as private while it’s in your basket! Assuming it works as they say you’ll still be able to play the game as normal but nobody else would know unless they directly log in to your account.

The faq doesn’t mention the new Steam Family stuff though. I’m guessing it’ll at least be hidden for parent accounts, but since parent accounts can control game access for child accounts that might not be as private?

I did already back up the claim with a source, but okay:

US: Senior 128k USD, mid-level 94k USD
CH: Senior 118k CHF (~139k USD), mid-level 95k CHF (~112k USD)
DE: Senior 72k EUR (~80k USD), mid-level 58k EUR (~65k USD)
NL: Senior 69k EUR (~77k USD), mid-level 52k EUR (~58k USD)

Yes, US and Switzerland are outliers.

100k USD per engineer assumes they’re exclusively hiring from US and Switzerland, that’s not a general “developed country” thing. US is an outlier.

According to a quick search, the US has the 6th highest incarnation rate per capita but is only 148th lowest in intentional homicide rate. Obviously this is far from conclusive but it suggests there’s no strong correlation. There are likely much more significant factors than how prison-happy a country is.

This isn’t exactly an in depth study so I could still be wrong, but it’s much more convincing than just some assurance from a random stranger on the internet.

You clearly didn’t bother to read anything I wrote (or you completely lack reading comprehension), but I’ll give it one more shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zucchini

This article is about the vegetable. For other uses, see Zucchini (disambiguation).

In cookery, it is treated as a vegetable, usually cooked and eaten as an accompaniment or savory dish, though occasionally used in sweeter cooking.

A 1928 report on vegetables grown in New York State treats ‘Zucchini’ as one among 60 cultivated varieties of C. pepo.

In France, zucchini is a key ingredient in ratatouille, a stew of summer vegetable-fruits and vegetables prepared in olive oil and cooked for an extended time over low heat.

In 2005, a poll of 2,000 people revealed it to be Britain’s 10th favorite culinary vegetable.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegetable

1
: a usually herbaceous plant (such as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part that is usually eaten as part of a meal
also : such an edible part

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetable#Terminology

Posting this link again because you didn’t read it.

Culinary vegetables unarguably exist since we’re referring to a physical thing which indisputably exists. I have seen a courgette before, I can confirm vegetables do in fact exist. You’re arguing that they don’t exist because you disagree with the words used to refer to them, which is also wrong. The fact many people use the culinary definition of vegetable when referring to courgettes means that the culinary definition of vegetable is correct; language is defined by how it’s used.

Vegetables exist. The culinary definition of vegetable also exists. The fact you don’t like that definition is irrelevant.

The first sentence of your article says cryptids aren’t real, vegetables do exist and we interact with them every day. I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. If someone tells you their name is Bob but fails to cite a source that does not mean Bob doesn’t exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegetable#Terminology

I leave on time, how is that an insult? I’d be much more insulted if someone asked me to work for them for free. That’s what unpaid overtime is.

I think you’ve misunderstood. They’re arguing against the capitalist approach in which there was an attempt to fire and rehire employees to cheat employees and save the company money. The system which prevented the company from doing so was government intervention to protect workers, which is not a capitalist approach.

it’s pretty shady to be looking for legal safe harbor for scammers who rob people all over the world every day.

This is an argument that happened entirely within your own head, not in this thread. I think I made it clear right from the start I’m against scammers and approve of (ethical) actions taken against them, but I’m also against people who dox, invade privacy, engage in vigilantism, and gain unauthorised access to other’s computer systems (particularly when it’s for profit and ego). These are not mutually exclusive, there is no disconnect there. I even gave an example of more appropriate actions to take against scammers, notably actions that are actually effective.

Criticism against “justice” porn is not remotely the same thing as condoning scammers. You’re arguing in bad faith and you know it.

This is very untrue and you definitely shouldn’t be giving out legal advice like this on topics you’re not knowledgeable on, but exactly which part is a crime and how criminal it is will depend on your local laws. Some such computer misuse laws are intentionally written very broadly with generic wording precisely so that edge cases such as unintentionally granting an unauthorised party access to a system does not clear them of wrongdoing when they do so.

As for how to tell which laws are relevant and whether you’ve breached them? Well, I’m sure the answer will shock you.

When I was in school the less well-off kids got their lunch free. There was definitely no equivalent to a “marker” the linked article mentions, unless you include the lunch ticket. I was actually kind of jealous at the time, I didn’t understand why I had to pay when I didn’t bring my own lunch and they didn’t.

Singling out kids because their parents can’t afford food is kind of fucked up.

Accessing a system you’re not authorised to access, regardless of how that access was obtained, is generally not legal. The way to sort that out is, you guessed it, a trial.

That argument doesn’t work, all you’re doing is pointing out the issues with vigilantism. He’s also committing a crime, are the scammers now in the right too since they’re targeting a suspected criminal?

This is why trials exist.

I suggest you read the next few words in that sentence which you conveniently left out of your quote, might help clear up any confusion.

I guess you could technically argue that the linked article promotes an anti-gun stance so it could be labelled propaganda (though I suspect you mean something more specific than just promoting a political stance).

However the graph itself is just the raw data displayed nicely so it’s hard to argue that’s propaganda or misleading. The graph is a little out of date but you can verify the current data by checking the source listed, the only thing that isn’t displayed publicly on that page is the subdivision of the now 27 instances where a bystander shot the attacker. Edit: This does also include knife and gun violence, though.

Your assertion that more guns would make the results “vastly different” isn’t based in any evidence, while the counter-argument that stronger gun controls and less gun-centric culture prevents mass shootings can be clearly demonstrated by simply looking at literally any other country. According to Wikipedia there have been only 45 mass shooting deaths (including attackers) in total in the UK this century. When a shooting happens here it’s always newsworthy.

I’ll definitely be downvoted for this too but I completely agree. There’s a fine line between entertainment at scammers’ expense and vigilantism for views. Publicly spreading the faces of people you’re accusing of a crime without any sort of trial is definitely the latter and has little direct impact on shutting down these operations. This video screams ego trip.

I used to watch Kitboga and they were much more ethical (at least when I watched). They’d lean heavily into the entertainment side, waste a lot of the scammers’ time which they then couldn’t spend on actual victims, and report/shutdown accounts as they came up which actually does directly impact their operation. Your scam call center still works if one of your workers gets their face posted online, it doesn’t if you have no bank account.

A little ham-fisted, sure, but if you think it’s irrelevant you evidently didn’t take any time to actually think about it (you did also reply instantly, so I’ll take that over you lacking reading comprehension).

I’ll simplify.

Digital piracy is illegal copying of unlicenced content.
Alice creates content.
Alice licences the content to Bob.
Bob decides to distribute the content with advertisements from Charlie.
You download the content.
Charlie does not pay Bob.
You did not breach any licences.
You did not pirate the content.

And just to further clarify, Alice is the person who made a video, Bob is Youtube, Charlie is an advertiser. Your argument is not an ad is piracy if “the advertisement company [hasn’t] paid the content creator.” The advertiser pays the distribution company, and the relationship between those two companies is irrelevant. The advertiser failing to pay does not retroactively turn you into a pirate.

The whole argument is pointless in the first place, it’s irrelevant whether or not you consider ad blocking to be technically piracy. A sensible adblock argument would be around the ethics of manipulation versus payment, or security versus whatever it is advertisers want. Arguing semantics doesn’t matter.

This is nonsense. Your argument is that you’re a pirate if one corporation with no relation to the content fails to pay a corporation which distributes but does not own the content. If you watch an ad then the advertising company refuses to pay you do not suddenly become a pirate.

If a struggling McDonald’s franchise fails to pay some franchisee fee that does not mean you pirated your big mac.