This is in NV, but what I don't know is what jurisdiction applies. Involved might be federal, state, or county agents. ~~The Ranger truck might suggest that it was federal, but the highway would have been state managed.~~
Edit: Read elsewhere that it was a Tribal Ranger truck, so yet another jurisdiction. Excessive response and the conduct is under review.
How does Russia want our help? Strange that they're asking the West to help with the Ukranian drone attacks, but they have my support.
That's the same theme of a reply I made yesterday. I read the article and might have even boosted it myself because as a fediverse citizen, I'm concerned about any government agency seizing an instance like this. The "well known racist" claim is demonstrably false, because I still don't know who they are talking about nor would I know the person behind a username.
I think a human might consider the meaning about what is being said whereas an LLM is only going to consider what token is the best one to use next. Humans might not be infallible, but they are presently better at detecting obvious BS that would slip undetected past an AI.
Maybe this is an opportunity we haven't considered. This is the chance to create a Turing CAPTCHA Test. We can't use Glorbo to do so, because it has been written, but perhaps it makes sense that there is a nonsensical code phrase people can use to identify AIs, both with markers intentionally added to LLM training models, buried in articles written by human authors, and a challenge/response which is never written down and only passed verbally through real human-human interactions.
Grandview seemed to do the best in clearly identifying the character 0. Is it an O, 0, I, l, or 1? Even without an example of O clearly visible in the sample text, the shape of 0 was very clear and seems like it should stand apart. Not the only reason to select a font, but it might be important to some.
Arguably it is a strength. Unless a user has used the same username and password for different instances, their credentials on one instance are shielded from exploit over the whole network. The potential risk can only really be determined by how security was breeched. If it was social engineering, then there isn't any other direct concern. If it was a vulnerability in software, then the same attack could be played out on other instances, but that's not any different than other systems like a Linux kennel exploit.
Long term, there is some benefit to this sort of concept. You aren't going to have as much freedom to turn your cloud based OS into a custom build, but what you will have is a machine which will never have down time for patches and security updates. The user will be running their app remotely, using all the power and hardware of a data center, and the instance of the app can migrate from one host PC to another, seamlessly without any perception to the end user. Furthermore a user can access all their applications and data from whatever client they are using and it will migrate this session from their terminal, to their phone, to their AR HMDs.
It isn't going to be a change which happens over night, and it will be more like how car engine have become less user serviceable but more reliable and efficient. It will be a different experience for sure, but it has potential value beyond being a way to charge people subscriptions.
That's a different game. Built on a modified Doom engine.
AI LLMs are the best rubber duck. Like a rubber duck, it's probably not going to "solve" anything for you directly, but LLMs can be a great tool to unlock your potential.
Yeah, "currently" is the wrong adverb to use. Relay and Boost were common apps I used and pretty much the only means I used to access Reddit. I only touched the desktop web app when I got a web search link.
We'd have to coordinate with WSB, and folks would lose money in this strategy, but those smooth brains with the diamond hands are good for it. As soon as the IPO happens, immediately buy all the shares available. Then do nothing. Volume needs to grind to a halt. Then at a predetermined time, a day later, a week, everyone dumps all their shares. Another huge spike in volume, but this time in a sell off. It will pop circuit breakers, and even those not part of the plan will join in. The price will plummet and Steve will be left holding the bag, trying to show that he has diamond hands.
In their interactions and personal knowledge, perhaps he was. If you personally don't know Danny or anyone else involved, your only exposure is what you've heard presented and made public. If you personally knew Danny and hadn't witnessed any of these crimes yourself, you now have a conflicted view of someone who is both your friend and now guilty of 2 counts of sexual assault. While that conviction almost certainly changes your relationship going forward, it doesn't change how you thought of that individual beforehand.
Ashton and Mila were asked to write letters of character that described the Danny they knew. It doesn't change the outcome of the trial, but as with matters that carry different sentencing structures awarded by the judge, a judge will often take letters like this to determine what is appropriate. Is there a chance that the defendant will repeat this offense? What punishment, if any, will be restorative to the victims? How does this punishment affect everyone, including families established years afterwards? Is the defendant the same person today as they were when they committed these crimes?
These aren't matters easily decided and therfore it isn't surprising to see letters of character submitted either as part of the trial or during sentencing. If there is a patten of behavior, then sentencing might be maximum allowed, but if there's no clear discernable behavior, then sentencing might be light.
I don't know all the details that was considered, but based on my knowledge from reports, I think 15 years concurrent would have been appropriate. However, I don't have all the evidence or material to make an informed decision. I don't look upon these letters ss reflecting poorly on Ashton or Mila as they were just doing what was asked of them to help give the judge the context necessary to carry out an appropriate sentence. They aren't guilty of doing anything wrong, more than the lawyers defending a now convicted and sentenced rapist.