Substitute "telling the truck driver to run stop signs" with "order the factory to increase production", it's the same thing.

If your competitors know that your Florida subsidiary is running inefficiently and being subsidized by your successful business elsewhere, they can target their own operations in Florida, undercut you more than you can possibly sustain, force you to exit that market entirely, so that they can monopolize there.

If the valuation turns out to change in the future, that's the hardware seller's risk.

It's not the same thing as buying a $20 million banana from a bahamian llc secretly owned by yourself, which is fraud.

The "Reliable vs Unreliable" section implies that different parts of the scene are sent using a strict-ordering protocol so that the transforms happen in the same order on every client, but other parts happen in a state update stream with per client queueing.

But which is which? Which events are sent TCP and which are UDP (and is that literally what they're doing, or only a metaphor?)

Really the economy of the text in the blog seems backwards, this section has one short paragraph explaining the concept of deterministic event ordering as important for keeping things straight, and then 3 paragraphs about how player position and velocity are synced in the same way as any other game. I want read more about the part that makes teardown unique!

Why did we have to invent an entire new transport protocol for this, when the only stated purpose is documentation?

They're losing money now because they're making massive bets on future capacity needs. If those bets are wrong, they're going to be in very big trouble when demand levels off lower than expected. But that's not the same as demand being zero.

> That cannot be true as it would be easy for a human to write in the style of AI, if they choose to.

Is that the nightmare scenario that everybody in this thread is freaking out about?

Students who go to great effort to deliberately try to make it look like they are cheating, they're the ones you're afraid of being falsely accused of cheating?

We're on our way to dystopia because people who go out of their way to look suspicious on purpose, arouse suspicion?

Genres are too vague and generic to be ownable by anybody. Inspiration is not plagiarism.

No it isn't. Stop.

The cynical part of me says that the people who share this link with that summary are the cheaters trying to avoid getting caught, on the basis of the fact that they are patently abusing the numbers presumably because they didn't pay attention in math class.

The tests are 90% SENSITIVE. That means that of 100 AI cheaters, 10 won't be caught.

The paper you linked says the tests are 100% SPECIFIC. That means they will *never* flag a human-written paper as mostly AI.

None of these tools are binary. They give a percentage score, a confidence score, or both.

If you include one ai sentence in a 100 sentence essay, your essay will be flagged as 1% AI and nobody will bat an eye.

The false positive rate is 0. The tool *never* says human writing is AI.

Tests can be wrong in two different ways, false positive, and false negative.

The 90% figure (which people keep rounding up from 86% for some reason, so I'll use that number from now on) is the sensitivity, or the abitity to not have false negatives. If there are 100 cheaters, the test will catch 86 of them, and 14 will get away with it.

The test's false positive rate, how often it says "AI" when there isn't any AI, is 0%, or equivalently, the test's "specificity" is 100%

> Turnitin correctly identified 28 of 30 samples in this category, or 93%. One sample was rated incorrectly as 11% AI-generated[8], and another sample was not able to be rated.

The worst that would have happened according to this test is that one student out of 30 would be suspected of AI generating a single sentence of their paper. None of the human authored essays were flagged as likely AI generated.

So, fine, there's a third condition: when the entire military mutinies, leaving the regime with no armed defenders.

Random personal small arms that a bunch of people just happen to have at home are not enough to win a revolutionary war against a professional military.

Self defense pistols and hunting rifles don't win wars, artillery does.

> You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

> (from the attached FAQ) Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).

I've played RPGs, I know how this works: you either Google image search for a character you like and copy/paste and illegally print it, or you just leave that part of the sheet blank.

So it's analogous to the "make a one-off dashboard" type uses from that programming survey: the work that's being done with AI is work that otherwise wouldn't have been done at all.

For all purposes actually relevant to privacy, the updated language is more specific and just as strong.