Released for $4.60. below average game cost they said. This makes me wonder… What do games cost on release most places?

I seem to remember $40 PS2/Dreamcast era $50 PS3/360 era, $60 PS4/5/Xbox S/S era. And now people are saying $80 for next gen. Sorry I know I dropped a lot of consoles, but was that pretty standard everywhere?

Had a a friend (well really more of my boss) years back that took their R1 in to get an oil change before he went to ride the Dragon up towards the Smokey mountains. Towed it up there, took it out and it burst into flames under him, so this 50+ year old man dive bombs off it while it’s moving and watched it melt e everything but parts of the frame and part of one tire sticking out. The rest was one melted heep. The Yamaha dealership gave him a new model year bike to avoid any lawsuits.

The oil filter never needs to go on to tight as you likely know but if you are ever worried about it in the future you could consider finding a brand that uses a “nut” at the end so your torque wrench may fit better. I always liked those when I had my Yamaha.

A kid who went on the internet and clicked I’m 18+ and looked at porn doesn’t have a victim (outside of the perpetrator if one wants to argue that). I don’t know what the laws are in the U.K. but here (U.S.) identity fraud/theft is a federal crime. With a possible sentence up to 15 years.

With how it was, there was no incentive for a kid to take their parents/older friends ID when they weren’t looking, or share ID’s/information with their friends to access those sites. If a person gets notice that their information is being used on a site they weren’t using, the likelyhood of it being reported goes up.

Hopefully nothing would ever go as far as being reported as fraud/theft, but all it takes is one person who doesn’t like their kid hanging out with someone else.

So while they didn’t create any new offenses for kids, they created roadblocks that put kids in a situation that may make them break the law out of sheer curiosity.

Getting caught drinking a beer, or smoking cigarettes would be a godsend compared to getting charges brought up for something so stupid.

Maybe but it’s a lot harder to start a fire with a cigarette than most people think. You need to be in a dry area for sure, and have good air flow. The tests people point to a lot are that if you drop a cigarette into gasoline, it will just put the cigarette out. If you drop it in grass, it is highly unlikely it will ignite anything. When they set up dry hay to test it they had the best odds of setting one. There were studies where they lit cigarettes and left them on different fabrics, and found 5/300 fabrics could actually catch fire.

If you pick up a leaf and try to light it with a cigarette it will fail unless it’s fall, and even in fall I have lit a leaf intentionally and dropped it to he ground and the leaf burns out without catching anything else. Your best shot would be to get your kindling all together, dried and knock the cherry into it, then start blowing on it like you were trying to start a camp fire. Wood doesn’t ignite till about 600F/300+C or so if it isn’t a continuous heat. (Assuming it’s dry). A cigarette burns at around 400F/200c unless someone is pulling on it, then temperature goes way up, which is why you’d want to blow on the cherry to get any kindling to catch.

Sidenote: I worked at a movie theater back in 2006 for a few years. At the end of the night we would throw away large amounts of popcorn. That stuff makes a great fire starter. It’s light, airflow around it is great, and because it has the oil on it it burns fairly hot and the fire tends to stick to kindle and such really well. I used to take a couple gallons or so and tie it to my backpack because it added hardly any weight, and you’d have a spare snack when drinking around the campfire after you get it going.

Someone should be asking what the sentence will be for kids who commit identity fraud and use someone else’s ID to set up an account. It may flip the narrative to point out they are intentionally creating more criminal acts that will get kids in trouble with the law and possibly ruin lives.

Can be sold as well. I looked at this chart to get numbers, not sure about accuracy. Shows China made around 9.27 PWh and used 8.93 PWh. The G7 used about 7 PWh total.

https://countryeconomy.com/energy-and-environment/electricity-consumption

Edit: realized my typo and now I’m questioning. in Watt hours, does it use Petawatt hours like computers do… I assume? Changed TWh to PWh

It’s great that they are creating that much. They have the largest incentive too, the U.S. second. The G7 they refer to (U.S. U.K. Japan Germany France Italy Canada) used a total of ~7 PWh of electricity in 2023. China used ~9 PWh.

Hopefully the G7 starts catching up. Chinas form of government puts their long term expendetures into play when figuring out where to invest as they have a monetary stake in how much it costs to produce the electricity.

In countries like the U.S. we see companies who have large investments in oil, coal, and such trying to manipulate the transition because they didn’t have the investments already in place with alternative energy sources. The U.S. government has no money “invested” per say, so long term they don’t care that it costs more during the transition as those profits are made by the companies. The old oil tycoons will milk every penny under the attitude “I got mine.”. Then they’ll die, and we will hope some companies have transitions in place that bring low cost efficient renewable systems long term

It’s a horrible ruling. If you want to see why I say so I put some of the reasonung in the other comment who responded to that.

https://lemmy.world/comment/17884664

The language model isn’t teaching anything it is changing the wording of something and spitting it back out. And in some cases, not changing the wording at all, just spitting the information back out, without paying the copyright source. It is not alive, it has no thoughts. It has no “its own words.” (As seen by the judgement that its words cannot be copyrighted.) It only has other people’s words. Every word it spits out by definition is plagiarism, whether the work was copyrighted before or not.

People wonder why works, such as journalism are getting worse. Well how could they ever get better if anything a journalist writes can be absorbed in real time, reworded and regurgitated without paying any dos to the original source. One journalist article, displayed in 30 versions, dividing the original works worth up into 30 portions. The original work now being worth 1/30th its original value. Maybe one can argue it is twice as good, so 1/15th.

Long term it means all original creations… Are devalued and therefore not nearly worth pursuing. So we will only get shittier and shittier information. Every research project… Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, all technological advancements, slowly degraded as language models get better, and original sources deminish returns.

Because you spent all night telling yourself if you fake sleep eventually you’ll actually fall asleep, but really you end up staring a hole through your eyelids. The fact that you can tell it’s light in the room with your eyes closed seems like a design flaw

Yeah, we had a fun example a while ago, let me see if I can still find it.

We would ask to create a photo of a cat with no tail.

And then tell it there was indeed a tail, and ask it to draw an arrow to point to it.

It just points to where the tail most commonly is, or was said to be in a picture it was not referencing.

Edit: granted now, it shows a picture of a cat where you just can’t see the tail in the picture.

Oh I agree it should be, but following the judges ruling, I don’t see how it could be. You trained an LLM on textbooks that were purchased, not pirated. And the LLM distributed the responses.

(Unless you mean the human reworded them, then yeah, we aren’t special apparently)

I suppose someone could develop an LLM that digests textbooks, and rewords the text and spits it back out. Then distribute it for free page for page. You can’t copy right the math problems I don’t think… so if the text wording is what gives it credence, that would have been changed.

“According to the October 2024 report from the NNSA, it has also been certified to fly on the B-2, F-16, and German Air Force PA-200 Tornado jets, and is working towards certification on the Italian Air Force’s Tornados and the US Air Force’s B-21 bomber.”

Meaning the German PA-200 the UK just retired in 2019 could have been certified to carry those warheads… But you probably would rather have warheads not made in America either

“While the copies used to convert purchased print library copies into digital library copies were slightly disfavored by the second factor (nature of the work), the court still found “on balance” that it was a fair use because the purchased print copy was destroyed and its digital replacement was not redistributed.”

So you find this to be valid? To me it is absolutely being redistributed

If I understand correctly they are ruling you can by a book once, and redistribute the information to as many people you want without consequences. Aka 1 student should be able to buy a textbook and redistribute it to all other students for free. (Yet the rules only work for companies apparently, as the students would still be committing a crime)

They may be trying to put safeguards so it isn’t directly happening, but here is an example that the text is there word for word:

I don’t follow what you were saying? Was it to another comment or do you mind rewording it for me as it is escaping me

Yeah this site keeps blocking my password when I type it: 1LoveCalzones!

Edit:… Oops guess not

People have different definitions of major incidents apparently…

“including a 17-year-old who was hospitalized after being found sitting on the street with stab wounds to the lower abdomen.”

“The prefect of the Paris police, Laurent Nunez, said that “no major incident has been reported.””