someone who can is waiting(and the salarymen can, shopkeeper’s privilege apparently in the US)
Can you elaborate on this? I've never heard of it.
Probius
joined 5 months ago
Captchas are actually a great tool for reducing spam and botting. Depending on the platform, they can directly benefit you. Captchas and manual approval for Lemmy account signups are directly responsible for the lack of spambots on this platform. The problem is that captchas got co-opted to force people to give companies free AI training data.
You can get better at understanding accents by listening to them more, so yeah, that's probably why.
I'm a native speaker and have absolutely no issue whatsoever with Australian and British accents, but people with a heavy Indian accent still sound like they're not speaking English to me.
And even if, for example, the Federation had such privacy laws, it should be pretty much impossible to hide on a Cardassian ship because you know they're all about that surveillance state.
It literally costs them money to make YouTube worse so that you can pay them to make it better again. NewPipe go brrrrrr
"But I don't want to eat the moldy cabbage on the ground outside!"
"Okay, do you have an alternative, or are you just gonna whine? Eat up!"
They probably did this specifically because people were upvoting our favorite plumber.
Can you clarify? Are you calling CGP a grifter, or did he just make a wrong prediction?
So the enshittification begins... I can't think of a single valid reason for wanting only account-havers to view your post.
I don't have a problem with games creating their own models trained only on things they created. I believe charging money for anything using assets generated by a model trained on data they didn't have the rights to should be illegal. If a model is trained on data that they do own the the rights to, but didn't create, that's a weird gray area where I think it shouldn't be illegal to sell its results, but you should have to disclose that you used it.
Of course, it's perfectly reasonable that if you know someone stole something, you can stop them. Under the prerequisite conditions section, it is stated that:
Wouldn't that mean that someone who has done nothing suspicious other than refusing the check would not be giving anyone reasonable grounds to stop them? Or does just refusing count as reasonable grounds and make the check effectively legally mandatory?