stankmut

Well yeah, it's a myth pushed by fossil fuel companies and climate change deniers. I was just saying I'm surprised you haven't anyone say it, it was the biggest 'gotcha' people would try to use when pushing back against EV adoption for years.

I'm surprised you haven't heard the opposite. It's wrong, but a really common talking point for a while was buying an EV wasn't actually good because of the pollution involved in manufacturing the car. Then a few years later they updated the rhetoric to talk about the minerals mined for batteries. I assume it was pushed by Fossil Fuel companies.

This The Guardian article mentions the minerals one. You can see an example of The Daily Telegraph pushing the myths with the headline: "Electric cars are made of pollution and human misery."

If we triple the lines of code produced, the number of LinkedIn posts made, and the number of garbage AI images generated, everyone will be able to afford a house and food will become so cheap it might as well be free.

This is for the drive-thru, so you aren't punching in what you want. You are looking out of your car window and saying what you want into a microphone for someone to jot down. This is trying to replace the employee taking the order.

That was a secret pact! You're not supposed to know about it. 😡

(Weird how they even bring it up at the beginning of the comment chain and then acts dumb about it. Even the Soviet Union acknowledged the pact eventually)

Only 7% makes me think people are interpreting the question as "would you admit on the phone to seriously considering shooting another person".

Running ads on cybercrime forums and having your marketing language say that you won't comply with the judiciary.

You are right about the current implementation, but the title of the post and what the other person is referring to is the original version. A product manager at Microsoft opened a PR and then an engineer merged it in and that PR caused it to put "co-authored by Copilot" on every commit made through VS Code, regardless of Copilot usage.

A few hours after the outrage started, the developer showed up and said the intention was only for Copilot generated code and that a mistake had been made (the statement you are referring to). Then he fixed it.

We're stuck in the outrage loop where someone who missed the whole thing sees something about the incident and posts it in an outrage and then people read that and get angry and post it in other communities. Everyone is talking about how Microslop wants to steal your code instead of the actual problem of product managers at Microsoft using copilot to implement code changes and then a software engineer merging it and it being released without testing.

Surely the last 4 digits don't point to an exact house. I'm fairly certain my zip code has more than 9999 houses. It does seem like it would get you pretty close though.

Their license also says they will not let anyone use their logo. So it doesn't appear to be a reasonable attribution.

The game containing public domain images wouldn't make the entire game public domain. Someone with a copy of the game could distribute those particular assets though. Maybe. It depends on how much human effort was involved; an AI image can become copyrightable if enough effort was done to transform it after it was generated.

It depends on what you are using placeholder assets for. If you want to use it to gauge how a scene would look before setting out to build it, then placeholders that stand out get in the way. You would need a way of tracking all the slop, but then you could have a build tool track how much slop is still in the game to make sure you catch it all before release.