When I look at Firefox in Discover, it only shows the list of permissions the flatpak will be given out of the box, with no warning of it being "potentially unsafe." This certainly does seem like the better way to handle it.

Also, the warning on the Flathub website is clickable - it expands into the full permissions list. Why it defaults to "no information except maybe dangerous" is beyond me.

Putin: "I don't see what's so hard to understand. All you have to do for the fighting to stop is to give me everything I want."

What a clown.

Doesn't have HDR, and doesn't have eye tracking? Those are two of its biggest selling points! What were they thinking?

Remember that a dance party is a party - most people are there to have fun. I think the main thing to avoid, if you can manage it, is being so caught up inside your own head that you aren't looking at the people around you. Keep your back straight, your head high, your eyes off the floor. Basically, avoid the posture of a shrinking violet and you'll feel less like one. Even if you don't feel confident, maintaining a pose that looks confident will keep some of your fear away, and it will passively invite others to interact with you, which boosts your confidence a little more with each person you talk to.

Even if you spend the entire party standing around and watching other people dance, as long as you are actually watching the event, and mentally present for what's going on, you will gain something from the experience. Just remember that standing around and not talking to anyone is as much a choice as going up to someone and asking for a dance. Neither choice is wrong, but you have to live with what happens - or doesn't - based on what you choose.

All that said, you can do this! We believe in you!

If it's got N95 filters in it, but the design is flawed in such a way that air can just flow around the filters even with ideal fitment, then the mask as a whole is not N95. Now, maybe their design wasn't flawed, we don't actually know that, but N95 is a NIOSH standard only given to products that NIOSH has received and tested to be at a certain standard; Razer neglected to submit their masks to NIOSH in order to get an official rating. Razer could have performed their own tests and listed the level of particulates it blocks at various levels, but marketing it as an N95 respirator implied NIOSH had verified it when they hadn't, which is fraud.

It's stored with zero-knowledge encryption, which means the server only receives enough information to authenticate the user, but otherwise has no ability to decrypt the user's files. Proton has an explainer.

It's a fun coincidence to me that corpophilia is one transposition away from a literal scat fetish. They may as well be the same thing, honestly.

Democratize corporations.

Adding to sleepyTonia's comment, many flash games have been preserved through Flashpoint Archive, which is like an epic DRM-free Steam client for flash games (as well as other web game technologies, like the shockwave player). However, Flashpoint uses old flash player binaries that, as stated, may one day stop working as hardware and operating systems evolve. If that happens, it'll be great to have a replacement interpreter ready to go that can be compiled to run on newer tech.

They're really gonna mention Lego Rock Raiders without a single nod to the unofficially sanctioned and free remake?

It's not even about selling you something, it's about selling you, period. They sell the user's attention to advertisers, and don't much care about anything else because anything else is too hard to quantify in a spreadsheet.

These days I mostly go for paid content like Nebula, alternative platforms like Odysee or PeerTube, or even Newgrounds - remember them? It's not always possible to avoid YouTube entirely since some creators I follow only have a presence there, but transitions like this take time.

I really hope he's cultivating at least one successor within the company to carry on his vision.

Since this labour is likely to be farmed out to innocent people in developing countries

You don't quite seem to understand how easy it is to train these AI models, and because of that, you're missing a critical point - with open-source technologies like Stable Diffusion, which has models that can be refined and run on a consumer-grade graphics card, the people using models to generate images and the people creating and refining those models are the same people. People who want to generate brand new pokemon sprites can train a model on all the pokemon sprites until it looks good. A few absolute galaxy-brain nerds who want to generate MIDI spectrograms from a text description and convert the output into audio... can apparently do that. And of course, people who want to generate lots of hentai or photorealistic porn can create and fine-tune a model, or multiple models, all by themselves (I won't link any of these, but hundreds are readily available, and thousands exist in total)

In other words, people who already consume CSAM are the people working on models for generating CP, and a subset of those have definitely been trying to make it work with only legal images so that the model itself can be distributed and used without breaking any laws, maybe even hiding in plain sight pretending it's not for making CP. Someone else out there with a different set of fucked-up desires has probably trained a model on gore and snuff images and then used it to create "photos" of people they hate as mutilated messes. There's sick people of all kinds all over the place, and the jury's unfortunately still out on whether this new tool actually causes harm when used in such a manner, or if it's just the newest way they can express their deviance. We don't know yet.

But this genie is already out of the bottle. Banning the use of this technology for specific, narrow use cases just isn't going to be effective without banning AI image generation entirely, and we're past the point where that's feasible. Image generation is a powerful tool that's not going away; it's on us now to figure out what we really believe about harm, health, and personal freedom, and what we want a society with this tool to look like.

Personally, I'm of a mind that if all the data going into the model is legally obtained, anything generated should be considered artistic expression. A person had a thought, then put their thoughts into a tool, which made a picture of those thoughts. No matter how repulsive those thoughts were, I think throwing people in prison for that kind of expression is thought-crime. There's public obscenity at play, of course, but only once they take the step of showing it to other people. If it's just for themselves, and nobody else sees it, who is harmed? Even if it does turn out that it harms the person generating the images (which wouldn't surprise me), that makes it a health issue, like drugs or other addictions, not something to criminalize.