I wanted to click Funny, until I realized it is 2025 and the orange baboon and his coterie of apes is in charge.
Their third study, published in 2023, took the link between solvent exposure and autism as a starting point. Using blood samples to examine the genetic makeup of the parents of children with autism, McCanlies and Hertz-Picciotto found that when exposed to solvents on the job, people with specific variants of 31 genes had an especially elevated risk of having a child with autism. Their genetic makeup appeared to increase the risk that solvents by themselves posed. Some of those 31 genes help cells connect with one another; others play a role in helping cells migrate to different areas so they can grow into the various parts of the brain; still others ensure that cells clear away toxic substances.You are one of those who had the genetic factors, that didn't need the additional tweak provided by the chemical pollution stimulating. I, on the other hand, am a son of an autist born in the 1940s, and the father of another born in the 1990s. We've all always lived in small town environments. I'd not be the least surprised to see some element of solvent or other chemical factor in our (mothers') lives.
you should not use AI due to its risks and limitations. Common reasons include concerns about reliability and accuracy, inherent biases, the potential for unethical use, and a negative impact on human skills and relationships. A critical understanding of these drawbacks is crucial for deciding when and how to appropriately use AI.Need I say more?
4chan (in a polite mood): "You can fine us as much as you like, how're you going to collect?" Ofcom: erm, the UK High Court will say bad things about you? 4chan: . Of course, this conversation works both ways - US law doesn't apply in the UK, nor does your insane 2nd amendment. (by the way, there's a hint in the name: it's an amendment - you could, you know, amend it away too)
That’s not child protection; it’s infrastructure for control."That's not a bug, it's a feature," said every congress-critter.
How much of a page needs to be touched by an unverified editor before it becomes 'unsafe'? One word? One paragraph? A section? It would become a "fun" target for DDOS perpetrators to use unverified accounts to just touch random pages (or 1000s of them) and get those tainted pages taken out of circulation. Do the users have to be verified 'today'. What happens if they weren't verified when they made the edit, but are now? What happens if an editor is now dead, but their verification status was not in doubt by the Wikipedia community at large (because they were a known reliable expert)? What about pages on niche subjects in low popularity languages that have been stable for a decade, but were written before verification became A Thing?
What you're suggesting is that sites will have to take the word of the connecting device that it is a 'child device'. This is a known anti-pattern - web developers have long known that it is stupid in the extreme to trust validation on the client side. One should always validate on the server side. And once you believe the device that's connected, you'll believe anything... fancy this bridge I've got for sale?
PBS publishes a lot of very good content on YouTube: Monstrum, Otherwords and Be Smart (used to be "It's okay to be smart") are my favourites, but there are plenty of others.
TechDirt has always covered more than 'just' tech. Copyright and trademark spring immediately to mind, but there's plenty of other areas where politics and technology are intrinsically linked. So, for this week's content above, Ryan Walters has definitely been exposed by his use (mis-use in office?) of technology. And AI is so definitely 'technology' as to be laughable that you missed it. Need I say more?
Branch One: The Orange Bully Branch Two: the dumb fzckers who enable him?
Ultimately it's not the payment processors (JP Morgan Chase, Worldpay, Stripe, PayPal, etc) who're the problem. It's Visa and Mastercard (and to a lesser extent Amex) who really call the shots. And they pull the puppet-strings of the processors. If Visa and Mastercard and Amex networks won't take your requests for payment, you won't be doing business with credit cards (or debit cards) at all, regardless of what the intermediate card processors say.
Carrying on, sir!
Frankly, this couldn't happen to a nice chap... decide for yourself whether I'm referring to Trump, Murdoch or Epstein. (oh, but would that make me anti-semitic?)
OMG how low the standards of humour must have reached for that nugget of wit (sic!) to get noticed!
What's the odds that Kennedy has an investment in the company? I'd say, given the current regime of adminis-grifters, the odds are significant.
A full refund after 19 years? (because the company didn't support for the full 20) So how does a business make any money for giving you 19 years service? Surely some sort of pro-rating against the purchase date would make more fair sense. Perhaps a full refund after 1 year, degrading to 5% after 20?
Is that a letter incoming from Clare Locke I see. Paging Ms Streisand. Could Ms Streisand come to the front page, please?
"Pravda" had the same problem.
Won't somebody please think of the AI crawlers. If they start using Truth+ as training data, who knows what nightmarish creations they will create. Second thoughts: maybe that would be a feature, not a bug? Make AI models so full of garbage people stop using them?