I suppose could implement it by requiring a deletion token that is returned when making a deletion request which doesn't have its own deletion token, but why would you? That's something for the frontend to handle.
Who can blame these poor, oppressed proletarian cultural critics, chafing under the yoke of the wealthy, with nothing to their name but their millions of dollars?
AI definitely does seem to want to add coloured left borders, tags and superfluous numbers all over the place from my experience, you have to tell it specifically not to
The western left-wing in general seems to have become quite a conservative (not Conservative as in right-wing) movement over the past few decades. A hundred years ago it was definitely extremely utopian - the communists were very much focused on the future - but modern left-wing movements are supportive of ecological conservation, reducing industrialisation, degrowth, buying local, opposing new infrastructure, and so on - all of which would have been considered conservative values in the 1950s and before. I think this is somewhat due to the way that upper-income, university-educated people (i.e. people with more interest in protecting what they own) have moved from the right to the left.
SpaceX is just going to be the Musk Company minus Tesla. X Corp, the X parent, is a subsidiary of xAI which is a subsidiary of SpaceX. This seems back to front, but I suppose SpaceX has the better reputation for investors whereas if X owned SpaceX the IPO would be devalued by the association with Twitter.
You shouldn't have believed photos since Stalin had Yezhov airbrushed out of them. The only thing that makes a photo more trustworthy than a painting is that it "looks" more real, and passes itself off as true. But there have always been photographic fakes, manipulation and curation of the photos to push a message. AI will finally end this and people will realise that the image of the thing is not the thing itself.
You are vastly, vastly underselling what is being lost. You can no longer look at a piece of art without first asking "is this even real", that is a collosal loss to the experience of being human. You can't just appreciate anything anymore without questioning it.
>You shouldn't have believed photos since Stalin had Yezhov airbrushed out of them.
It isn't just about propaganda photos, it is about -litearlly everything-, even things people have no incentive to fake, like cat videos, or someone doing a backflip or a video of a sunset.
I agree, but if you enjoy the art, why does it really matter who made it, like I enjoy looking at sea shells, no one made them, but they are nice to look at?
The quality of the text is really impressive and I can’t seem to see any artefacts at all. The fake desktop is particularly good: Nano Banana would definitely slip up with at least a few bits of the background.
There are a couple of AI-esque misspellings - in the More Myth than Menace wolves image, on the right in the "at a glance" section, it reads "wolves aarely approach people," and in the Typography image the text in the top right is "Type connncts us all."
But yeah the quality is remarkable, and rather scary.
Drinking has been decided to be totally fine though, no need to ban that - probably because it's unfashionable to smoke, and the kind of people who come up with these laws find it uncouth. It will also be ridiculous in a few years when the UK inevitably decides to legalise marijuana - totally fine to smoke a joint, but don't you dare put any of that tobacco in it!
Drinking doesn’t affect others as direct as smoking does.
Most of the indoor smoking bans in the U.S. have been based entirely on the fact that second hand smoke affects the employees who are forced to be there.
Further, drinking has a far deeper cultural resonance, so smoking is clearly the lower hanging fruit.
And it’s not like the UK has not been taking action against drinking. For example, they’ve imposed minimum alcohol taxes which have been directly linked to lower consumption.
Drinking affects others much more than smoking does, it's just that it doesn't affect random strangers. In a study of the harms of various substances, alcohol came out on top by a mile for the damage it does to the family and others close to the drinker.
I should qualify the above: it doesn't affect random strangers as often as second-hand smoke does. But drunk driving and drunk violence are a thing, and both can affect anyone.
I think these laws are bizarre morality rituals. Evidence doesn't conclude it has anything to do with public health when you see how vicious alcohol is.
This isn't the smoking gun you think it is though.
Of course Alcohol and Tobacco are high up on the list because they are legal. The percentage of people drinking vs percentage of people doing heroin is not even comparable.
Apparently <0.2% of people in the UK are heroin users. [0].
Apparently above 50% of people in the UK drink once a week or more [1]
What should be surprising is that 0.2% of the population results in the second highest negative impacts on society. Not that something the vast majority partake in causes the most issues, of course it does given the sheer scale of it.
Put simply, imagine if 50% of the UK did Heroin at least once a week, it would be much worse than alcohol usage.
Nobody was ever attacked on the street by a tobacco-addled stranger at 3 in the morning though. Besides, they're not banning indoor smoking, they're banning it entirely - including vaping and other nicotine products.
That cuts down on drinking, except for the alcoholics of course. Scotland also imposed a minimum price per unit on alcohol, in an attempt to further cut consumption:
Right. Booze is straight up naturally occurring, albeit rare. That's why you get drunk monkeys and other wildlife. The animal is like "Actually this moldy fruit is pretty good" - they did absolutely nothing to manufacture booze but here it is.
They're not banning smoking in general (which would be impossible anyway, what are they going to do, make it illegal to set something on fire and breathe it in?), they're banning nicotine products. I also really doubt that they will legalise weed and then say "but of course you're not allowed to smoke it, edibles only".
Major numbers are just for marketing, if it's not good enough that it feels like a similar jump as from 3.7 to 4 they're not going to give it a new number.
reply