Your security is only as good as the weakest link, which is usually people. If your password policy encourages users to stick a note to their screen then your weakest link is anyone in the office deciding to take a selfie or joining a call with their camera on. Best practices balance security with what users are actually willing to do.
Good luck remembering them all, also change them all every 30 days, so here are my secrets.
Password expiry hasn’t been considered best practice for a long time (must be at least a decade now?) largely because of the other points you mentioned; it leads to weak easily memorable passwords written somewhere easily accessible. Even when it was considered good 30 days would have been an unusually short time.
Current advice is to change passwords whenever there’s a chance it’s been compromised, not on a schedule.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that language models are effective lie detectors, it’s very widely known that LLMs have no concept of truth and hallucinate constantly.
And that’s before we even get into inherent biases and moral judgements required for any form of truth detection.
My gut reaction is that this won’t work long-term. Users on youtube often point to specific timestamps in a video in comments or link to specific timestamps when sharing videos, meaning there needs to be some way to identify the timestamp excluding ads. And if there’s a way to do that there’s a way to detect ads.
Of course, there’s always the chance they just scrap these features despite how useful they are and how commonly they’re used; they’ve done similar before.
It might not necessarily be that the instances are stricter, it could also simply be that those instances are targeted more often by hate/trolls so interact with those instances more often. Admins are less likely to defederate from an instance they’ve never seen or heard of. I see a lot of obviously LGBT-related names in this list which likely get more hate than average.
It’s well outside my field so I’m definitely not qualified to answer that, but the trials seem to be building on this study so that might give more insight.
This probably isn’t going to be available to you then, though it is possible it paves the way for a tooth-replacement treatment. This article seems like bad science communication. The video, tweet, and website they link to all state that they’re researching congenital conditions, the inquiry form linked to on the website explicitly states in English they’re not considering people who lost their teeth later in life and specifically calls out articles like this one as misinformation.
We are currently receiving a large number of inquiries that differ from the purpose of this research, which is very troubling.
This research is a study of therapeutic drugs for people who are missing teeth due to congenital (from birth) diseases (diseases, etc.).
This research is not aimed at restoring teeth to people who have lost their teeth due to acquired causes, as some news and social networking sites have reported.Additionally, we are not currently recruiting candidates for clinical trials (adult males).
If someone said they were concerned about their sugar intake would you tell them to just stop eating entirely? It’s possible to take steps towards privacy-friendly services without cutting yourself off from the modern world in the same way as you can cut back on sugar and still eat food.
You absolutely do not need to “burn all your devices” to improve your privacy, suggesting so is unhelpful at best.
That link is a 404 so I can’t tell what it says, but here’s a 1996 US act to enforce net neutrality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
And here’s a 2006 Tim Berners-Lee blog post about threats to net neutrality which specifically says net neutrality already exists, you really can’t get much more authoritive than that: https://web.archive.org/web/20060703142912/http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
Obama may have enacted some legislation around between neutrality (again, your link 404s so I can’t tell what specifically you’re referring to) but it certainly wasn’t created under Obama.
The concept of net neutrality definitely existed long before Obama so it’s a bit questionable to say it was created under him. Did anything specific happen under him to enforce net neutrality more than it already was?
You’re definitely right about Trump though. It seems like he took every opportunity to screw over the US public in favour of corporate interests.
The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.
And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me “irony” then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.
It’s definitely worth noting that you’ve attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.
Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.
CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others’ use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you’ll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as “consideration”). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg “Copyright © 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.”) but that hasn’t been a requirement for a long time.
Adding a CC link and falsely claiming it’s an anti-AI licence is misinformation and undoubtedly does add confusion.
Likely because it’s blatant misinformation and very spammy. Licences permit additional use, they do not restrict use beyond what copyright already does. I imagine there’d be fewer downvotes if they didn’t incorrectly claim licencing their content was somehow anti-AI. Still spammy and pointless, but at least not misinformation.
Imagine if someone ended every comment with “I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO READ THIS COMMENT. ANY USE OF THIS COMMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. THIS COMMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS IN RELATION TO ANY CRIME.”
A bit silly, no?
The name is an analogy, neural networks do not work in the same way as biological neurons. They were designed by computer scientists, not biologists.
RAM is so far removed from biological short term memory both in how it works and how it’s used that the comparison doesn’t even make sense. The only similarity is that they’re short term information/data stores, so it’s equally valid to compare them to a drawing in the sand of a beach.
There’s definitely some issues that jump out to me on first read.
1. I’m not sure about “indivisible”. An area should be able to self-govern if desired. More detail needed.
2. Awful. Removing people’s voting rights in general is bad, and something as nebulous as “a criminal offence” is incredibly easy to abuse. Are people no longer citizens if they steal a loaf of bread? Also, voting age here is 16/18.
4. No. Guns are incredibly rare where I am. I’d rather not have one, and I’d prefer not to risk getting shot every time some asshole on the street gets mad.
7. Limiting land to a single use is generally not a great idea. What if for instance you have too much agricultural land and not enough housing?
10. A central state-owned bank isn’t a bad idea, but abolishing all non-state banks is iffy. Should the government really have so much direct control over everyone’s finances?
12. Your salary should not be based on the amount of unprotected sex you have. That’s just silly. Other support should be available for those who need it.
“Too industrious” to be homeless sounds like nonsense victim-blaming to me. Homeless people aren’t all lazy, and lazy people definitely aren’t all homeless. It’s a societal failing, not a personal one.
There’s no discount there, you’re just accepting their marketing bullshit. That sounds to me like the company is double-dipping by shoving ads in your face and making the product objectively worse, then charging even more for a “premium” model where the only difference is they haven’t intentionally downgraded it.
But ‘cold’ and ‘heated’ are bad. People are weird about temperature.