FaceDeer

If she linked getting rid of daylight savings time with separatism I would be seriously conflicted when casting my ballot.

But if you did randomly choose the 0% option, you'd be correct. So if one of the possible answers was 0% the correct answer would be 25%.

A few years back I bought one of these on a whim and I've found it to be an excellent ear wax removal tool. Just take care when inserting - that's the motion that can shove wax deeper or impact your ear drum.

A quick Googling shows that there are a ton of other tools with a wide variety of shapes and materials, but this is the one that I can personally vouch for. Cleaning the wax off of the finned end after use requires a strong jet of water, that's the only downside I can think of.

Bitcoin miners often operate intermittently, though, shutting the mining rigs off whenever the price of electricity spikes and turning them back on again when the price goes low enough to be worth it. So volatility alone isn't going to determine whether it's profitable to run a mining business, the average price is still the most important determinant. Renewable energy sources like hydro, wind and solar are actually extremely attractive for Bitcoin mining operations because the energy providers can't always control how much electricity is being generated, resulting in periods where they'd glut the market. In those situations they're willing to sell electricity at below market price and a mining business can fire up mining rigs to use that cheap excess.

It's quite possible that Bitcoin is not profitable to mine in Texas if the average price of electricity is too high. The article that was making the rounds didn't specify that, though, it just said that Bitcoin wasn't profitable to mine in general. I am not a fan of Bitcoin's proof-of-work approach, modern cryptocurrencies use proof-of-stake instead. But the basic idea for how proof-of-work operates is sound, it uses market forces and game theory to ensure that the "correct" amount of mining is going on by making it so that profitability is always on a razor's edge and the less efficient mining operations have to shut down.

It can be a thankless role sometimes, a lot of people are very personally invested in hating cryptocurrency. Often they don't want accuracy, they just want to hear that something bad happened to crypto. So when I come in with an "um, actually" I become the villain. :)

No, it bases its difficulty adjustment on the rate at which blocks are produced. They are supposed to be produced once every ten minutes, on average. If the time between blocks goes above that then difficulty is too high and it's adjusted downward, and the reverse if the blocks are being generated more quickly than that on average.

The opinion polls for Brexit were a lot closer to 50/50 than Alberta separatism is.

Part of me wants to get it over with so we can answer the referendum with 95% telling her to go swivel, and hopefully put this nonsense to bed once and for all.

The other part of me dreads what shenanigans she'd get up to trying to distort that number.

There was an article claiming that making the rounds a week or two back, but it was highly misleading and didn't understand the technology. Bitcoin automatically adjusts its difficulty so that it's just barely profitable to mine, if it becomes unprofitable then it readjust again in short order to fix that.

There have been a few. The Allies in WWII leap immediately to mind.

But in this case I don't see why anyone would do this for America.

But you're claiming that this knowledge cannot possibly be used to make a work that infringes on the original.

I am not. The only thing I've been claiming is that AI training is not copyright violation, and the AI model itself is not copyright violation.

As an analogy, you can use Photoshop to draw a picture of Mario. That does not mean that Photoshop is violating copyright by existing, and Adobe is not violating copyright by having created Photoshop.

You claimed that AI training is not even in the domain of copyright, which is different from something that is possibly in that domain, but is ruled to not be infringing.

I have no idea what this means.

I'm saying that the act of training an AI does not perform any actions that are within the realm of the actions that copyright could actually say anything about. It's like if there's a law against walking your dog without a leash, and someone asks "but does it cover aircraft pilots' licenses?" No, it doesn't, because there's absolutely no commonality between the two subjects. It's nonsensical.

Honestly, none of your responses have actually supported your initial position.

I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting my position.

The "copyright situation" regarding an actual literal picture of Mario doesn't need to be fixed because it's already quite clear. There's nothing that needs to change to make an AI-generated image of Mario count as a copyright violation, that's what the law already says and AI's involvement is irrelevant.

When people talk about needing to "change copyright" they're talking about making something that wasn't illegal previously into something that is illegal after the change. That's presumably the act of training or running an AI model. What else could they be talking about?

The parents weren't paying attention to their obviously disturbed kid and they left a gun lying around for him to find. But sure, it was the chatbot that was the problem. Everything would have been perfectly fine forever without it.