Ibuprofen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID). It will reduce inflammation and the associated pain. If your pain is not caused by inflammation then you should talk to a pharmacist about what the best analgesic is for you.

Really we should be asking (I want to know) why FEMA invented their own USAR standards instead of adopting the INSARAG ones? Why the US have put so much more money into USAR and not flood and storm response? Surely after Harvey and Katrina, not to mention tornadoes, you’ve learned that having something like Australia’s SESs would provide you with surge capacity of people skilled in storm damage mitigation and flood rescue? I really would like to know

Well, poor black people at least

People getting brake and break mixed up annoys me, but I get it. If this is you, your car has brakes and you take a break from work after breaking your arm.

Like… a water tank?

1 in 1000 year events are poorly named. One because it describes a likelihood, so this storm had a 0.1% chance of occurring in any given year, so we’d expect to see a storm like this once every thousand years on average. It’s not cyclical. Two, the likelihood of these storms is steadily increasing and so it’s probably no longer a 1 in 1000 year event.

Almost certainly not. It’s common in some communities for people to write their own image transcriptions.

I doubt Trump’s followers will think of this as a breach of their 2A rights. They will likely think that it’s black people and bad actors who will have their guns taken for the safety of the boys in blue.

I say “look it up”. Applies to lots of forms of search, be it google, DDG, YouTube, Wikipedia, a dictionary, a manual, pretty much anything.

I did not like it, but you make a good point; it’s good for people to try new and different things in order to stand out in a competition like that. However, why we care what anyone thinks except for the breaking community is beyond me. Why should anyone care about my opinion when this is the first time in years I’ve even thought about breaking? I want to hear what actual pros think, not randos from xitter.

Lol same. I think it’s probably because commenting is more like normal conversation; you’re responding to other people in ways that are specifically meaningful to the circumstances. Writing is sorta like talking to the void in my mind. I find I spend much more time thinking and checking and re-reading to make sure I’m appealing to my imagined audience, rather than just contributing a sentence or two to a conversation where the audience is a bit more concrete.

You’re in the wrong fucking community, moron

Spot on!

Worse still is the pronunciation of “bologna”. How. Just how. None of you seppos have the right to tell me about how I pronounce “herbs” or “pecans”. Then again, our pronunciation of “lieutenant” is messed up.

Copyright gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to modify the work, to use the work for commercial purposes, and attribution rights. The use of a work as training data constitutes using a work for commercial purposes since the companies building these models are distributing licencing them for profit. I think it would be a marginal argument to say that the output of these models constitutes copyright infringement on the basis of modification, but worth arguing nonetheless. Copyright does only protect a work up to a certain, indefinable amount of modification, but some of the outputs would certainly constitute infringement in any other situation. And these AI companies would probably find it nigh impossible to disclose specifically who the data came from.

Nobody has been able to make a convincing argument in favour of generative AI. Sure, it’s a tool for creating art. It abstracts the art making process away so that the barrier to entry is low enough that anyone can use it regardless of skill. A lot of people have used these arguments to argue for these tools, and some artists argue that because it takes no skill it is bad. I think that’s beside the point. These models have been trained on data that is, in my opinion, both unethical and unlawful. They have not been able to conclusively demonstrate that the data was acquired and used in line with copyright law. That leads to the second, more powerful argument: they are using the labour of artists without any form of compensation, recognition, permission, or credit.

If, somehow, the tools could come up with their own styles and ideas then it should be perfectly fine to use them. But until that happens (it won’t, nobody will see unintended changes in AI as anything other than mistakes because it has no demonstrable intent) use of a generative AI should be seen as plagiarism or copyright infringement.

This time it isn’t (I think)

I highly recommend Science Vs, 99% Invisible, and Cautionary Tales. Pretty good if you’re into nerdy stuff. I also recommend Endless Thread if you’re interested in stories about the internet. What audiobooks have you enjoyed recently?

Fascinating! However, the fire department (or whoever is your local IDR unit) will almost certainly run coolant while cutting a ring off of anyone.