Madrigal

Go and look up the meaning of “though”, and parentheses.

I was referring to quality of living.

When did I say that?

I hope this is the case, but I can’t see the creators getting paid more than a small fraction of the value of their work even so.

Not the best analogy. The glue factory was a thing while horses were a primary tool for transport and heavy labour. And horses were treated appallingly. Now that they’ve been made redundant, living standards for horses have improved dramatically and the glue factory is long gone (though their population has also reduced significantly).

We can only hope for a similar outcome for ourselves.

Good one. Did you use an LLM to generate it?

This is exactly what will happen.

/s

It has its uses, but it is being massively overhyped.

Having trialled Copilot and a few other AI tools in my workplace, I can confidently says it’s a minor productivity booster.

Those corporations are about to find out the fun way that these algorithms, in their current and near-future states, cannot replace human beings.

Well, except for maybe lazy copywriters who pump out pointless listicles and executives who do - whatever it is they do - but any non-trivial task requiring creativity and understanding is beyond these tools.

There are better ways to do that even in Excel!

And that’s their only “good” product.

The rest is utter garbageware, designed for one purpose: to check boxes on RFPs.

“On two occasions I have been asked, ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” - Charles Babbage

Just give it a couple of years for the hype/boom/bust cycle to complete, then it’ll settle down and people will start using the tech appropriately.

This isn’t even remotely ambiguous. The DoJ’s interpretation is correct.

The question isn’t really about the meaning of “and”; it’s about the syntactic structure of the whole section.

A defendant is eligible if they do NOT have (A and B and C). In other words, having any of A, B or C will disqualify them.

The law could have been written in a more readable fashion, for example:

the defendant—

• (A) does not have more than 4 criminal history points…;
• (B) does not have a prior 3-point offense…; and
• © does not have a prior 2-point violent offense…

But the meaning is the same either way. Amazing that this got to the Supreme Court.

It’s also entirely plausible that this is exactly what was intended when the law was written.

Not to mention it’ll work terribly in most light conditions.

My work machine is W11 and has options to change it. Not one of those stupid ‘home’ vs ‘pro’ version things is it?

They used to have that as a filter. Although for a long while you could pick short (<4 mins) or long (>20 mins) but not medium length videos.

This, too, was a sign they had no fucking idea what they were doing.

Nope, I’ve seen it myself. Cannot imagine a more useless feature.