We're nowhere near the potential capacity for energy production from renewables, and already we're capable of doing 100% renewable power production.
Potential capacity is really not the issue.
We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can't we?
It's because we stopped building them. We have academic knowledge on how to do it but not the practical/technical know-how. A few countries do it because they're doing a ton of reactors, but those don't come cheap either.
Renewables will not cover your usage.
False. Multiple countries are already able to run on 100% renewables for prolonged periods of time. The bigger issue is what to do with excess power. Battery solutions can cover moments where renewables produce a bit less power.
My point is more that the sides aren't symmetrical, but for twin-stick shooters it makes more sense if they are (which they are for DualSense).
For platformers you're right, but for twin-stick shooters you're using the shoulder buttons/triggers far more than the front buttons, and you are constantly using both sticks. And those happen to be fairly popular on PlayStation consoles.
Turing the wheel of the car like crazy when they on a straight road.
Just drive like Nicholas Cage drives.
That's true, but Wikileaks does share at least some of the blame for making the encrypted documents accessible. They're not immune to leaks themselves and should handle these incredibly sensitive documents accordingly. In this case, they failed to do so and an external party triggered a leak. Wikileaks should probably have deleted the documents alltogether.
IIRC a password providing access to some of the full, unredacted documents was leaked, so despite Wikileaks vetting the documents some names did still get out. It was fairly quickly scrubbed and its believed that nobody was harmed in the end, but it got pretty close.
Haha I'm not Canadian and live about an ocean away from there, so definitely not me π. Lovely place though, I should visit sometime (and swap hardware I guess π ).
I don't know what CHS is so I'm not sure what you mean by that (then again that might answer your question maybe :P).
I actually remember this one being much longer. IIRC, dad starts yelling that he "won't be threatened in his own house", anon gets confused and tries to explain, mom starts yelling, he leaves the house, gf gets mad at him for even having the gun, asking how long he's been carrying it with him.
PayPal passes most billing information to the store where you purchased from. Card info is excluded, but in most cases PCI compliance checks ensure that card info is stored securely (or not at all).
when he was walking around the crowd offering water and medical assistance, for hours.
And he needed a rifle for that, did he? His stated purpose for being there was vigilantism. He literally said as such during the trial. He stated he was there to "protect property" and he brought a rifle to do so. Unless that was a water pistol, he was there intending to use lethal force.
Nobody gave a shit. You can't look at all that video and act like he was this intimidating scary presence because he was armed, when it's obvious ZERO people freaked out over it that day.
Yeah, except for the people that evidently did. And obviously you don't need to immediately freak out if you see something not considered "mundane".
digusting that you're trying to turn Rosenbaum of all people, into this heroic figure
I'm literally not. Don't put words into other people's mouths. As stated by Rittenhouse himself, he came to Kenosha, armed, in order to at the very least intimidate the protestors/rioters (whatever tickles your fancy) there. Rosenbaum, who is not exactly a stable person, was not intimidated by these attempts. In a previous encounter, Rosenbaum threatened someone Rittenhouse was with at the time.
Instead of deescalating and leaving the scene, which Rittenhouse could have easily done, he decides to risk a confrontation and sticks around. When he runs into Rosenbaum again, something triggers Rosenbaum to chase him.
Oh, he decided that, did he? You know that forensics confirmed Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel when these shots were fired, don't you? As if Rittenhouse shot once, hit Rosenbaum in the groin, and Rosenbaum INSTANTLY stopped attacking him and backed off
Well the tooth fairy didn't decide for him. I don't need forensics to see on the video used in the trial that after being shot once, Rosenbaum falls over and graps the barrel briefly, after which Rittenhouse shoots and kills him. Oh, and this is after Rittenhouse decided to stop running, turn around and shoot him.
I like how you left out that the first of the two only got shot AFTER nailing Rittenhouse in the head with a full swing of his skateboard, and that the third only got shot after HE tried to shoot Rittenhouse
Some would call them heroic after they saw Rittenhouse kill someone and tried to neutralize the shooter.
The point is that Rittenhouse was uniquely able to prevent 2 deaths by simply not going on his vigilante-stint. He could have gone unarmed if he was only going to provide water and medical assistance, but that wasn't why he went there. While the legality of his actions can be disputed, the morality of his actions is clear: what he did was deeply wrong, and he's responsible for two people dead.
I didn't say he was armed
Rittenhouse was, so that's what my analogy is using too.
Meaning that, just like in Rittenhouse's case, the fact that someone is openly armed is mundane and not a cause for concern in and of itself, at all.
Someone walking around openly armed is absolutely not mundane at all. If it's police it's a minor cause for concern, if it's an untrained civilian who looks underage, it's much greater cause for concern. If he's walking around at a protest to supposedly "protect businesses", he's a clear and direct danger. What the law says doesn't change what he can do with a weapon like that, and thus what threat he poses.
Rittenhouse provoked no one
You're unaware of the basic facts of the case. Drone video clearly showed Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people, repeatedly. This direct threat to others is what eventually provoked Rosenbaum into trying to take his gun off him. After Rittenhouse neutralised him by shooting his pelvis, he then decided to execute him on the spot, which was well beyond self-defense. He then shot two others who believed him to be an active shooter (and he demonstrated he was by killing one of them).
You can't expect to go to a protest, heavily armed, pointing your gun at people and expect people to be all okiedokie about that. It's a clear provocation.
If a black guy went to a KKK meeting with a rifle and sat there provoking the KKK members, I'd argue he probably went there to stir up a fight. Not that I have any sympathy for KKK members or their actions.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a response from OpenAI, it could well be some bot platform that serves this API response.
I'm pretty sure someone somewhere has created a product that allows you to generate bot responses from a variety of LLM sources. And if whatever is interacting with it is simply reading the response body and stripping out what it expects to be there to leave only the message, I could easily see a fairly bad programmer create something that outputs something like this.
It's certainly possible this is just a troll account, but it could also just be shit software.
Aaand here's your misunderstanding.
All messages detected by whatever algorithm/AI the provider implemented are sent to the authorities. The proposal specifically says that even if there is some doubt, the messages should be sent. Family photo or CSAM? Send it. Is it a raunchy text to a partner or might one of them be underage? Not 100% sure? Send it. The proposal is very explicit in this.
Providers are additionally required to review a subset of the messages sent over, for tweaking w.r.t. false positives. They do not do a manual review as an additional check before the messages are sent to the authorities.
If I send a letter to someone, the law forbids anyone from opening the letter if they're not the intended recipient. E2E encryption ensures the same for digital communication. It's why I know that Zuckerberg can't read my messages, and neither can the people from Signal (metadata analysis is a different thing of course). But with this chat control proposal, suddenly they, as well as the authorities, would be able to read a part of the messages. This is why it's an unacceptable breach of privacy.
Thankfully this nonsensical proposal didn't get a majority.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2022:209:FIN
Here's the text. There are no limits on which messages should be scanned anywhere in this text. Even worse: to address false positives, point 28 specifies that each provider should have human oversight to check if what the system finds is indeed CSAM/grooming. So it's not only the authorities reading your messages, but Meta/Google/etc... as well.
You might be referring to when the EU can issue a detection order. This is not what is meant with the continued scanning of messages, which providers are always required to do, as outlined by the text. So either you are confused, or you're a liar.
Cite directly from the text where it imposes limits on the automated scanning of messages. I'll wait.
