OP was not given all of the shares earned at the time decades ago and didn't realize that they should've been payed out, but after engaging in a lawsuit realized that the court would likely not grant the case give the statute of limitations.

Kinda like all the Sony game 'owners' not carefully reasing the legally binding contracts they're always signing realizing that they are not in fact purchasing a gauranteed lifetime access to the game.

Offspring require birthing of said offspring, so AI would have to have been birthed in order to be offspring.

That the code is trained on human inputs means little. The exact same code, math, and algorithms, trained on Alien texts, given the same human prompts, would produce alien responses. Would such a system be "born" of both humans and aliens? As if humans and aliens had produced a baby artificial alien intelligence?

Would a large "language" model trained exclusively on dolphin sounds be a "baby" of humans and aliens?

I'd argue that both framings (alien and offspring) have significantly different contexts and therefore do not adequately frame the phenomenon; while 'greatest engineering feat' does in fact provide the "we've never done anything like this before and it could either be great or terrible and will likely be both" given the existence of things like TNT, cars, and nuclear energy.

If I fork chromium, I do not get to claim that I am a chromium maintainer.

Vim and Neovim are two seperate programs.

I cannot fathom how people are not seeing the multiple daily posts as anything but the spam they are.

Surveillance is the monitoring of one party by another unaware party.

A company surveilling an individual and an individual surveilling a company is the same activity, despite one perhaps having potentially greater resources.

I don't buy the claim that the root word meaning "above" means that we should mean that we need another word with a root word meaning "below" given that a so called "sousveiller" could in fact be recording from a place of advantage. (Either physically above a company or given the potential scheduling freedom of a dedicated and compelled freelancer.

Is it sousveillance if one were to write a script logging every available source of one other who's registered a company and is the soul employee of said company? e.g. If some neckbeard "sousveills" every post of a sex worker that's working for a company they registered for their own tax purposes?

Clearly not. The first might be suurveillance or possibly spying, and the second is clearly stalking.

edit: instruments, double jointedness

The primary key to any such interesting display is discretion. If everyone knows you play the piano, no one cares. If no one knows, and you hit Tchaikovsky's 1812 in the mall, everyone's shocked.

Going from not juggling to juggling knives can be done in perhaps weekends.

Then, of course, you can do all the fancy multi-object patterns, but I've yet to see a reaction to three spinning knives surpased by five+ tennis balls. The five+ tennis balls are neat while the three (even just two) spinning knives is always a visceral holy shit please stop you're going to hurt someone.

Do you really believe that all of these major non-profits are advertising, encouraging, and participating in the use of an illegal network protocol?

Using any network protocol to violate copyright law on the other hand, is and has been illegal. But it's the violation of copyright, not the network protocol.

Saying torrenting is illegal is like saying ftp is illegal.

"Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed"

Or "here's three photos of XYZ taken on three seperate days at his new favorite coffee shop, notably across from this elementary school. Read on for our take on why he likes this shop so much!"

Or even something as simple as positioning the camera just so that one national head appears shorter than another. Or, in an interview, adjusting lights on the 'hero' to make them look good and highlight the shadows on the 'villain' to make them look ominous.

Use a mirror set up to make it look to the 'villain' that they are making eye contact but are instead looking weirdly askance.

Limitations are the origin of creativity. Force publishing RAW would just force journalists to be more creative in their framing.

Also, no edits for filesize? Lossless RAWs are huge! Especially from professional cameras. You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames. The few who care enough to see the 'real' image (that is still tainted by photographer intent regardless of file size and editting) are motivated enough to click the lossy jpg for the raw. Those who do not care aren't going to sit waiting on the order of minutes to see the first image.

Even a camera obscura with a strip of film inside contains some adjustment to the "actual" image. If I expose the film for longer/shorter or during differing weather conditions, or near a train, etc, the developed film is going to have an appearance that may tinge the viewers perception of the subject. A short exposure, slightly off tilt, during a partially cloudy day, and a 'proper' exposure, rightly aligned, during full sun at noon, both of the same subject, both taken as soon as the photographer could to meet the deadline, both published on the front page of a newpaper, will give readers wildly different tastes for the subject.

Even two different b/w films will have different brightness/contrast etc, and the color films vary even more, with some punching various red/blue/green levels.

That's all without necessary deliberate intervention of the photographer. Once you get in to artistic license, you've got an even wider range. Taken from a low angle to add gravitas, taken from a high angle to minimize chin and highlight chest, with special lights to deepen shadows, with/without normal/stage makeup to add anything from regality to poverty. Taken in one's very nicest clothing, with family that is never around, while everyone has a congenial expression. (Aww, look at this lovely family)(look at the grand barren desert monument off in the wild dunes that is clearly not littered with tourists and a short walk from downtown cairo) This is easily noticeable if you've seen both a wedding and it's final professional photos. The lights didn't look like that. Where'd the audience around their first dance go? Holy shit, she looked good, but not that good.

Many have often taken photography as if it offers a genuine view of a thing at a time. We even sometimes call historical representations "snapshots". But it's never been the case.

Not sure I'd really call any photo a fake per se, they're all just representations. I suppose the fakeness comes from outside the image: the framing. If one edits a picture of a park and says "come to Always Sunny Perfect Awesomeville Where it Never Rains and is Always Full of Butterflies", then one has lied as it definitely rains there and there's certainly not always butterflies. One producing a deepfake is doing the same: capturing something they'd like captured. If it is represented as a photograph, then, sure, there's a lie; there was no photograph. But both the image with the clothes on (with lighting, editting, and makeup) and without are the same "here's what I thought it should look like" rather than "here's an exact transcript of the actual arrangement of this particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum that would have met my eye at the time"

of which: Nearby Wi-Fi Routers (Location Triangulation) is 84.2 pings/hr

So a stock (idle!) pixel 8 is checking where you are more than once per second (without maps running, without asking for directions) and asking what you're doing almost five times a second.

Is there any slope at all? Like, does it ask more frequently in the beginning and less after an hour+ of idle, or is it fairly static?

Would be very curious to see what adding social media and voice assistants does to this, especially with a controls against a silent room and a room with a radio/movies/TV/pure music playing.

Does the voice assistant send more data in the conversational context? How much more? If it is indeed more, how much voice is theoretically being transmitted given the average words per bitrate?

It could also be interesting to see if the stock device transmits more in a conversational environment. Like, if the device is idle, why would it be transmitting more while sitting in an office instead of a quiet lab?

Though it appears to have gained popularity from 2017-2021, it dipped in '22 and that's as far as ngram goes.

Humans do the same thing to humans all the time.

We've banned and made efforts to eradicate: children out of wedlock, children who turn out gay, disabled children, jewish children, children who aren't "aryan", more than two children to a single family...muslims, christians, uyghurs, indigenous groups all over the planet, mongols...

And it's not at all a thing of the past as in just the last 50 years we've had ~15 attempts at the exterminations of targetted groups of people.