…I did not know you could put the fish you catch into the pond and they might start reproducing

The one area I would sorta disagree is on updates, although only inasmuch as they’re needed for security fixes on things connected to the internet. But if it’s not connected? No, no updates needed unless I encounter a bug or they add a new feature I really want.

I remember it looking better than this screenshot shows

To tag along with this, I remember this becoming an issue 10 or 15 years ago and a lot of the big lyrics websites were forced to reach licensing agreements with the songwriting groups like ASCAP and BMI (they collect and distribute royalties on behalf of the writers). I think a couple sites tried going to court to claim fair use but lost pretty quickly. That’s pretty established law going back to the earliest days of music publishing. Just because they were publishing online instead of printing up songbooks doesn’t mean the laws change.

The article on The Verge has a quote from someone at Valve saying they expect that will be among the first ones the community creates for it.

As much work as the Verge article says they put into cooling, I’m not too worried about heat issues

There’s a story in one of the comments about an IBM mainframe that shouldn’t be missed

Marrow was interested in “how public institutions decide what’s worth showing, and what happens when something outside that system appears within it”.

He said using artificial intelligence to create it was “part of the natural evolution of artistic tools”, adding he sketched the image before he used AI.

“AI is here to stay, to gatekeep its capability would be against the beliefs I hold dear about art,” he said.

[…]

The artist, who said similar stunts he had carried out at Bristol Museum and Tate Modern were not “approved, sanctioned, or acknowledged”, denied it was vandalism.

“The work isn’t about disruption. It’s about participation without permission,” he said.

“I’m not asking permission, but I’m not causing harm either.”

It’s like the same “logic” AI companies use when they take copyrighted content without permission: claim you’re not causing harm so you don’t need permission. They don’t see the harm, so from their perspective it’s fine, even if the creator doesn’t want them taking their work.

Railing at the institution as being gatekeepers might reveal the flaw in their logic. People or institutions are entitled to decide what belongs in their collection and what does not. Random outsiders are not entitled to be a part of that collection. They can be invited in if the curators are interested in their work, but the curators are generally not required to add them just because they’ve made something. The artist can create their own collection and invite others to be a part of it, but they’re not entitled to be in anyone’s collection. They also can’t just go and take something from someone else’s collection without permission, and even taking a photo of someone else’s work and placing it in their collection would at the very least be bad form. The other artist is just as entitled to decide where they do or don’t want their work displayed.

With encryption and encryption backdoors I often use the illustration that I put a lock on the door of my house, not because I have something to hide, but because I have things valuable to me that I want to protect. Just because I have nothing to hide, it doesn’t mean I give the police a key to my house or let them add their own lock to my door. I wouldn’t want to come home one day and discover a random policeman had let himself in and was making copies of all my documents and photos just to make sure I wasn’t doing something bad. I’d be even more upset if I came home and discovered a policeman from another country had let himself in because he’d gotten a copy of the same key, or a thief was doing the same because he’d gotten a copy of the key.

Building off that illustration, I might have a collection of art in my house. This guy is not entitled to come into my house and look at my art, nor is he entitled to come into my house and put a picture on an empty space on my wall just because he thinks it should be there. Railing against gatekeepers keeping his slop out to me seems as ridiculous as him being mad that I won’t open my door and let him put a picture on my wall. He might not be damaging my walls, but just forcing his way in against my wishes is something I would view as harmful.

Sneaked is the traditional form as the past tense of a regular verb, dating back to at least the 1500s, whereas snuck only appeared as an irregular form in the 1800s and it’s not clear why. It’s very unusual for a regular verb to become irregular. Snuck is more common in US English than British English, although sneaked and snuck appear in both variants. Sneaked would seem more correct especially for British English.

You can link to it as a normal video if you prefer by changing shorts/ to watch?v=

https://youtube.com/shorts/LnyS4sFL3h0

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LnyS4sFL3h0

I’ve never written a game FAQ but when I’ve done documentation for other things on a computer I’ve found that I prefer recording myself doing the task and then writing the guide while going back through the video. It’s too easy to skip steps otherwise.

In addition, the special protection of sensitive data like health data, political views or sexual orientation would be significantly reduced. Also, remote access to personal data on PCs or smart phones without consent of the user would be enabled.

The authoritarians can’t get Chat Control passed so they’re trying this instead?

Top right looks a little like Godzilla

Interesting; I’ve read that more and more jurisdictions are ending the concept of common law marriage. The idea is it existed in a time when a legal marriage was harder to get. Nowadays in those areas a legal marriage is easy to get so the thought is if those people never legally married it’s because they didn’t want to, not because they couldn’t, so there’s no reason to have a marriage forced onto the couple.

I have some friends with the last name Raper. The oldest brother was able to make an account on Hotmail that was firstnamelastname@hotmail. A few years later I was with the middle brother when he tried to setup the same for himself but was told it had disallowed words. Although he used his middle initial C in the attempt which put “crap” in the username, I don’t think that was the disallowed word.

I have a strong preference for Dobie Pads, and found their version inferior

How well did they work if she still became a mom, though?

Instead of promptly removing bad actors, Meta allowed “high value accounts” to “accrue more than 500 strikes without Meta shutting them down,” Reuters reported. The more strikes a bad actor accrued, the more Meta could charge to run ads, as Meta’s documents showed the company “penalized” scammers by charging higher ad rates. Meanwhile, Meta acknowledged in documents that its systems helped scammers target users most likely to click on their ads.

“If you’re going to scam our users we want a cut.”

Is the birth control sponge still available?

Yes. Though the birth control sponge was taken off the market in 1994 – and again in 2008 – it was reintroduced for a second time in 2009.

Why was the birth control sponge discontinued?

The birth control sponge was introduced in 1983, but was discontinued in 1994 after FDA inspectors discovered bacterial contamination at its manufacturing plant. The sponge reemerged in 2005 under new ownership. The new owners promoted the product and then sold it to another company – a business that went bankrupt in 2007. A new distributor picked up the birth control sponge in 2009, and the product has been sold nationwide since then.

That case of sponges Elaine found might’ve been dangerous!

I got hit with a frying pan when we were trying to replace my wife’s mother’s non-stick pans that were starting to flake. My mother-in-law is legally blind, and after we gave her the new pans she showed me the old one, saying, “look at it, it’s perfect!” My response of, “it’s even worse than she said!” was the wrong thing to say to an elderly woman holding a pan.