snooggums

Legally defined as secure, not actually secure.

They are fairly insecure in practice, since they are throwing the data at misdialed numbers and they are frequently placed in shared and insecure locations in the building where lots of people can access whatever comes through.

Things that are inspiration or for approximations. Layout examples, possible correlations between data sets that need coincidence to be filtered out, estimating time lines, and basically anything that is close enough for a human to take the output and then do something with it.

For example, if you put in a list of ingredients it can spit out recipes that may or may not be what you want, but it can be an inspiration. Taking the output and cooking without any review and consideration would be risky.

Sometimes it is a bunch of Indian guys pretending to be AI!

Bit chat

Bitch at

Being Jack Dorsey, I’m going with the latter.

Going back in time creates the butterfly effect mechanics!

My speculation is that some biological trait improved enough for life to try out all kinds of new things. Maybe a cellular function improved and a little ecological pressure resulted in many different kinds of viable body shapes and behaviors being feasible.

So nothing visible without a lot of scientific instruments and a solid plan for testing.

I thought the whole redemption and trying to be a better person thing was well communicated as part of the game. She didn’t shy away from saying how horrible she was in hell.

No search engine or AI will be great with vague descriptions of niche subjects because by definition niche subjects are too uncommon to have a common pattern of ‘close enough’.

• narrowing down keywords for an unfamiliar topic
• getting a quick intro to an unfamiliar topic
• looking up facts you’re having trouble remembering (i.e. you’ll know it when you see it)

I used to be able to use Google and other search engines to do these things before they went to shit in the pursuit of AI integration.

LLMs are like a multitool, they can do lots of easy things mostly fine as long as it is not complicated and doesn’t need to be exactly right. But they are being promoted as a whole toolkit as if they are able to be used to do the same work as effectively as a hammer, power drill, table saw, vise, and wrench.

If I have seen it less than about a hundred times, it is a 5. I will have some key words that let me describe it successfully to other people, but I can’t actually picture it.

If I have seen it fairly regularly for a few years, or haven’t seen it for several years, probably a 4.

If I have seen it for decades, it might be a 3. Apples, which I see at least every few days is a 3.

I have an internal narrator that doesn’t sound like a specific voice that is like a pseudo auditory representation of my thoughts. This mostly applies to reading or troubleshooting where I’m consciously working through stuff. It also means that something which stands out as incorrect is massively annoying, like people confusing lose and loose because I ‘hear’ it. Homophones are fine!

I can’t really picture things unless it is something I have seen many, many times. So no picturing something in my mind that I haven’t seen before. Most things I have seen before are mostly vague ideas and with minimal detail. Like I know a baseball has the stitching and it curves in a certain way, but probably couldn’t draw it. I know what my wife’s face looks like, but can’t quite picture it in my head because I don’t look at a singular photo of her over and over.

But I can hold relational information like many to one combinations and 3d space relative positioning but without the ability to see it. So I can generally figure out if things will fit together even though I can’t really ‘see’ them, I know they fill a certain volume relative to other things of a similar volume and that is generally good enough. Most things are measured relative to each other now that I’m thinking about it.

Yeah, morons who believe anything wealthy people say. Just like Musk.

Trump has always been a petty shithead loser. He was mocked back in the 80s for being creepy around women, running failed businesses, and not paying his contractors.

I don’t think Musk or Trump have any charisma, but apparently a lot of people see (inherited) wealth as charisma.

Cool, so after they are legally required to then they will start creating the documentation.

The point is making them change how they do things when how they do it is shitty for consumers.

Or buying a physical book where they printed it with ink that fades after 2 years so it is no longer readable.

This has nothing to do with open source.

Nothing.

Open source has zero relevance.

None whatsoever.

Nada.

Their licensing will change so that it doesn’t restrict keeping the game alive after servers go down or their license can’t be used to kill an otherwise functional game. That’s it.

Games will be designed to include the ability to do private servers after the company servers go down. It will be a cost of development just like anything else they are required to do. If they don’t want to include that, then they can choose not to make an online game.

When the law passes, the owners of proprietary functionality will adapt their licensing to meet the requirrments or go out of business when everyone stops using them.

None of those things will be affected because this isn’t about making games open source. It is about making games that have a design that allows them to potentially function indefinitely instead of allowing the companies to design them with planned obsolescence like tying single player games to server verification.