Mirodir
I'm sorry, I think you mean "blasting the pyramids with photons."
I find it wild that, to this day, Windows defaults to opening them in a browser. Windows has an image viewer right there.
Can that image viewer extract text so that a user could easily copy/paste it? I think if whatever pdf I was opening didn't allow me to do that I would be really frustrated.
Remember the people who created malicious libraries that ChatGPT made up and suggested, in the hopes someone would blindly install them? You can do this a lot easier here. Check what websites this tends to hallucinate when typing "google" "youtube" "facebook" etc. and if any of them don't exist yet, register that address and host a phishing version of the corresponding site there.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Which brings me back to the last point in my comment.
I also hope I'm right. The two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result. Also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was "No visible damage".
As I said, I'm not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.
Edit: Formatting
but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument
As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.
That's not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it's a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It's the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh's painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.
I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.
Also if we give it the benefit of the doubt (and it really is a stretch to make this work lol): I could make the argument that this person meant to write: "The movie has such a terrible premise, yet it was successful enough to have two sequels. Learning how it got that success despite the material's premise taught me these 5 things about product management:" and just worded it terribly.
I can only speak for myself. For me it felt really great being able to explore the world having absolutely zero idea of what is what, how much game is left, etc. It is reminiscent of a time when I was a kid and playing a game was exactly like that.
I even got quite sad when my friend "accidentally" told me
spoiler
That a certain action I did locked me into a specific ending unless I did something I probably wouldn't be able to figure out. Rationally I understand that this is as inconsequential as it gets, but I didn't even know for sure if there were multiple endings until that point.
I totally agree with you. I was just clearing up why people bring up Spore beyond just the first stage being similar.
Eh, nothing I did was "figuring out which loophole [they] use". I'd think most people in this thread talking about the mathematics that could make it a true statement are fully aware that the companies are not using any loophole and just say "above average" to save face. It's simply a nice brain teaser to some people (myself included) to figure out under which circumstances the statement could be always true.
Also if you wanna be really pedantic, the math is not about the companies, but a debunking of the original Tweet which confidently yet incorrectly says that this statement couldn't be always true.
People mention Spore because the official FAQ mentions Spore.
Thrive is never gonna be “from puddle to space adventures”-type of game.
People also mention Spore because this is exactly what the devs are envisioning. To quote the FAQ:
Gameplay is split into seven stages – Microbe, Multicellular, Aware, Awakening, Society, Industrial and Space.
So is the example with the dogs/wolves and the example in the OP.
As to how hard to resolve, the dog/wolves one might be quite difficult, but for the example in the OP, it wouldn't be hard to feed in all images (during training) with randomly chosen backgrounds to remove the model's ability to draw any conclusions based on background.
However this would probably unearth the next issue. The one where the human graders, who were probably used to create the original training dataset, have their own biases based on race, gender, appearance, etc. This doesn't even necessarily mean that they were racist/sexist/etc, just that they struggle to detect certain emotions in certain groups of people. The model would then replicate those issues.