I hope this is at least banking that time; you don’t get overtime, but you can use that time later for paid time off.

I’ve been noticing this too! It’s weird scrolling down to something I’ve already voted on

I stopped at the PS2…

Tip for next time: shine a bright light across the wall to cast shadows and really emphasize any imperfections. I do this while sanding, and circle with pencil anything that needs another coat of mud to fix then go back and take care of those.

As you wish

Very cool! This sort of tech will only really feel right if you’re waking straight ahead at a steady pace though. As soon as you change directions or otherwise accelerate it won’t feel right because you don’t have to deal with any of the momentum that you normally do.

I like the idea of it being used on inanimate objects for other purposes though. Could this be coupled with the volume to move some props in a way to really sell paralax or movement when viewed in camera? The SFX uses are probably many.

Or maybe it does, who knows. It’s the Cybertruck afterall

Oh wow… You could use a consent deep fake to trick another person to create the sex one. This gets messy quick…

I wonder what happens when it just accidentally looks like someone but was intended to be a fictional person. Also, how much can you base it on a real person before it’s considered a deep fake of that person? Would race-swapping be enough to make it a “new” person so it’s not illegal anymore? My intuition is that just eye colour or something wouldn’t be enough, but it’s a sliding scale where the line must be drawn somewhere even if it’s a fuzzy line.

What about an AI generated mashup of two people like those “what the child would look like” pictures back in the day. Does that violate both people or neither?

What about depicting a person older than they are now? That’s technically not somebody that exists, but might in the future.

What if you use AI but make it look like it’s hand-drawn or a cartoon?

What if you use AI to create sexual voice clips of a real person but use images that don’t look like them or no image at all?

There are just so many possibilities and questions that I feel it might be impossible to legislate in a way that isn’t always 10 steps behind or has a million unforeseen consequences.

I was imagining an awning or something that was being set up when it rained

I liked the show as a kid. The main protag’s gun would shoot this cool shockwave ripple that I thought was really cool. The money system was kinda neat too.

Thanks for digging up/translating the info!

I also would like to see the numbers… This article links to another one that supposedly goes into more detail (I see graphs at least) but it’s in French so hard to say. I’d love some absolute numbers rather than percentages as percentages can give the wrong impression depending on what numbers we’re dealing with.

Never mind the huge difference in impact from oil infrastructure and nuclear, context matters. Who the aggressor is makes a big difference.

Maybe because Trump supporters don’t care what he says or does, while nobody fanatically supports Biden

They could do what they did back in the day; show recommended videos based on the current one.

Anyone else having issues with strikethrough formatting? It still shows the tildes and the word gets smaller and lower.

Like this

It’s sooo good

Trees are hard enough to take care of on the ground, we don’t need the wind breaking branches off and sending them down to crush whatever’s below. If we’re stuck on incorporating greenery in our architecture, it’s gonna need to stick to grassy type plants.

That’s exactly my point… The way the headline is worded it conflates his plan with trying to destroy the art when the full context of the quote is his clarifying that he’s specifically not trying to destroy the art nor does he believe it’ll come to that. It’s a misleading headline that also doesn’t quite make sense as it conflates trying to do something with publicly “planning” to do something you don’t believe will actually happen.