LittlePrimate

Die Stückchen auf der Scheibe überzeugen mich, dass du Recht hast.

Why would they normally run into 6000+ subs going private? I'm sure they tested that their code can generally handle some (usually smaller) subs going private, but the number and size of the subs going dark isn't a normal scenario and I doubt anyone would have assumed such a successful and coordinated protest involving some of the biggest subs would even be possible a few months ago.

I don't disagree. The topics are a bit hit or miss and yes, my newest free ebook from them is from 2020, so all contents should be taken with a grain of salt. I did manage to grab some on C++, Machine Learning and different Pentesting tools, so not everything is completely obscure but as you said, usually they do not choose their most recent books. I see it more as a nice free resource on some topics in the books as of course not everything will be entirely out of date. It's also not necessarily worse than buying their 2023 books today and using them for the next 3 years... That's just a general problem with tech books, at least these outdated books are free.

I just bought Frogsong. Very cute game, I only played for around 2 hours so far but I like it. :)

Fair point, I changed it. :)

Eh, most people here would probably also laugh at a human pastor spewing such platitudes.

But yes, I'm sure such an event would draw more spectators than faithful people, who knight actually be repulsed by replacing a pastor with a machine. Hell, I left church almost two decades ago and would consider joining in to see an AI holding a service.

When writing my PhD thesis I not only used the full latin name of the monkey species I studied, I even added the citation for the original, first description of it. It's something that should be standard, because when a species gets renamed you otherwise might not longer know what older texts are referred to, but entirely fell out of fashion in many disciplines. My PI actually marked the citation with "What is this?" and when I explained he said it's pretty old school but if I want, I can leave it...

I'd probably write both, but if I had to choose, latin, as it makes it more clear. And I'm not even thinking about "global", some common names are different in different regions of the same country, where the same name can describe two different species.

No. Chat-GPT is not sourcing it's claims. I think it would also change it's (usually misunderstood) purpose. Chat-GPT is a language model made to create responses that appear natural. It's purpose was not to recite facts, although it often does so as a side effect on how it was trained, it simply creates likely word combinations. The researchers entered millions of texts and Chat-GPT ran some math to figure out which word is mostly likely to come next after each other word. So, simplified, it opperates on a likelyhood table of word relationships, generated when it was trained. This includes following up "Super Mario is" with "a video game character" as most texts it saw will refer to him as that. People mistake this as it generating facts (because if asked about things a factual response is likely because it's what Chat-GPT usually saw) but this was never the purpose of Chat-GPT. So a response like "Super Mario is an orange cat who loves lasagne" would also be valid output, as it perfectly resembles natural language. It's factually wrong but a correct sentence and after the first switch from "video game character" to cat, following up "orange cat" with love for lasagne is again a likely sentence. This is also what happens in most "made up" sentences. Chat-GPT takes a wrong turn somewhere (maybe because it does not have facts on a person or thing, maybe because it's ambiguous or maybe because the user was actually trying to direct it into that sentence) but then continues to follow up with likely words. And once you realise that Chat-GPT always tries to create a natural, logical response, you can easily trick it into making up certain things. So if you ask about lawsuits regarding a certain person, it'll create a natural sentence describing a lawsuit that this person was involved in that is entirely made up. But most importantly: the text will be grammatically correct and appear natural. And if Chat-GPT would respond "This person was never involved in a lawsuit" you can often simply say "OK, but let's pretend this person was" and Chat-GPT will happily make something up.

Bing's purpose is different. It of course also has that "natural language" approach but additionally might actually run a web search to be able to quote and source it's claims, whereas Chat-GPT does not even know what's written on todays websites. It has access to it's initial training data from September 2021 and a few additional datasets they used since then for refinement, but it has no live access to the Internet to look up up-to-date information. So Bing likely will be able to summarise the last Apple announcements where Chat-GPT will just say "sorry, I do not have that information ". If pushed, Chat-GPT might make up correct natural language sentences about that conference but the statement will be just be likely word combinations, not facts.

I'd say for a secure password in a manager, it's not really harmful.
Someone who uses a manager and secure passwords will usually be aware of the "generate me a new unique, secure password" feature, so they will generate a new one and simply paste that into the page. They might be inclined to just add the bad practice "-01" although it honestly doesn't make a unique, secure password worse unless the unencrypted password was somehow leaked. The delay in emergency situations mentioned in the post might still happen, although the harm there will depend on the exact situation and likely usually fall into the "annoying delay" category.

I absolutely agree that forced password changes need to die simply because a majority of users still tries to remember passwords and is therefore prone to bad practices, but for someone with a password manager and unique passwords it's more unnecessary and annoying than actively harmful.