Even if they did, they would jsut be used to train a new generation of AI that could defeat the detector, and we'd be back round to square 1.
Though, you generally don't tell that to their face, not in that way, and certainly not when they're confiding in you about/celebrating finding themselves. That's simply hurtful, and beyond rude.
You generally won't go up to your friends on their wedding day, and say the same phrase. You're more likely to put it as "I'll miss drinking with you in the back yard, but I'm happy you're happy", and not as a seriously-spoken "It's like watching my friend die!".
"capability of holding eggs" covers the vast majority of humankind. Hands are useful like that.
Especially since they've currently got a big, expensive war on their hands, that they're all-hands-on-deck for.
As an example, medical care/inheritance rights are one.
Back before the days of gay marriage, there were no end of horror stories of LGBT people whose partners were dying from HIV, and were forbidden from seeing their dying partners, or for estranged family to swoop in and kick the "friend" out, preventing them from seeing their partner, often taking everything that belonged to the deceased in the process.
A relatively famous art piece has a similar story, where Boskovich's boyfriend's family swept in and took everything from their shared apartment after he died, effectively erasing their relationship in the process. All that was left was an electric fan.
People wouldn't blink twice if you'd brought your partner some chocolate, or lunch because they were having a bad day.
The way she contextualises it is a bit odd, but the actual thing isn't that bad. It's just accommodating him, being aware of his particulars, and helping him over his issues. The gift of a single M&M is unusual, but giving your partner something nice isn't strange. People do similar things all the time in relationships, it's just not thought of as training.
Biggest issue is her framing it that way, because people might either get the wrong idea, or give the wrong idea. Saying she's training him like a dog gives the idea of a lead, like with an actual dog.
And normalising it is a good thing all-round. You want privacy to be used for trivial, unimportant things, not for it to be seen as something that only most secret vital things need, and thus something most don't.
People would be more likely to use it that way.
Nor their history with intercepting/inserting affiliate links. Sure, that was for a crypto site, but nothing suggests that it can't happen with other things.
Pragmatically, is that really any different with a passcode? Someone might not be able to physically force an unlock like with biometrics by moving the relevant body part over, but there's certainly nothing stopping someone from forcing you to unlock your phone if you had a passcode through by duress. Most thieves would have certainly wised up enough to force you to remove your passcode before leaving, or they'd watch you unlock your phone, and figured out the passcode that way.
I rather doubt that, if in that kind of situation, there would be many who would resist. Your phone is not worth your life for most.
Personally, if I wasn't doing anything sensitive, like travelling through some countries (like Australia/the US) or going to a protest, I'd probably keep it on. The convenience makes up for it for the most part.
The brain equivalent of doing a burnout.
At least one major paper did, although it used AI images instead of text.
There was a paper with AI generated diagrams that not only passed peer review somehow, btu was published in a pretty major reputable journal.
You'd have normally expected them to catch it in peer review and decline to publish, especially as they took it down later.
E-War probably comes close, though.
Permanently Deleted
Incineration is a terrible idea indoors. At best, you've now got the smell of cooking and pyrolised human juices filling the place, and at worst, is the house being filled with carbon monoxide from the combustion.
If you were powerful enough, sure. The court is only as strong as its ability to enforce a punishment.
The president is exempt from criminal prosecution for things they did as part of their duties, and if no-one is willing to impeach or impose other punishments, they can be as contemptuous as they like. How would the court stop then?
This seems unrealistically convoluted, to the level of someone who's just looking for evidence of a conspiracy. A gang symbol is a bit rubbish if you need a cryptography manual to identify it. The whole point of a gang symbol is to advertise that you belong to the gang.
You could probably find a trifecta of 3s and link him to the Illuminati if you tried hard enough.
It also enables a few of the older features, like being able to read replies to a Tweet, now that the website formerly known as Twitter bars it if you're not logged in.
What did you expect, it literally has Virgin in the name (!)
Paper would fall under that these days, wouldn't it? You can't just fit a word (8 bytes) onto a punch card like the old days, and you'd need billions of the things go even start matching up to modern storage.
Likely, since he was fleeing El Salvador before he was deported back there.
If there are motherboards and daughterboards, are there fatherboards and sonboards?
Why is there a mother-daughter thing in the first place?
What happened to Kbin.Social?
While kbin.social's site mentioned that they were migrating to a new provider, and as a result, the site might be experiencing some issues, kbin.social has been serving up a similar HTTP 50x errors, and that migration message for well over a month, if not more.
What happened?
How do you ask for a haircut?
While ordering a crew cut is easy, since it's on the menu, what about other kinds?
Can you just go "I'd like a men/women's haircut" and leave it at that, or do you need something more specific, like saying you want a Charlestone done by a No. 3 to the sides, and a 4 up top?
Why is "Dear X" considered more formal than "To X" in e-mail/writing?
You wouldn't start off an e-mail with "My Dear X", or "Dearest X", since that would be too personal for a professional email, so "To X" being more impersonal seems like it would make the letter more professional-sounding, compared to "Dear X".
What caused the change in electronic terminology?
What caused the shift from calling things like rheostats and condensers to resistors and capacitors, or the move from cycles to Hertz?
It seemed to just pop up out of nowhere, seeing as the previous terms seemed fine, and are in use for some things today (like rheostat brakes, or condenser microphones).
Why cut/bulk in cycles instead of doing it all in one go?
You often see people in fitness mention going through a cut/bulk cycle, or mention one, with plans to follow up with the other. Why is it that cutting and bulking so often happen in cycles, rather than said person just doing both at once, until they hit their desired weight?
Was the Federation right to grandfather in Earth's laws against genetic modification?
One of the recent laws in Trek that gets looked at a bit, is the genetic engineering ban within the Federation. It appears to have been passed as a direct result of Earth's Eugenics Wars, to prevent a repeat, and seems to have been grandfathered into Federation law, owing to the hand Earth had in its creation.
But we also see that doing so came with major downsides. The pre-24th century version of the law applied a complete ban on any genetic modification of any kind, and a good faith attempt to keep to that resulted in the complete extinction of the Illyrians.
In Enterprise, Phlox specifically attributes the whole issue with the Eugenics Wars to humans going overboard with the idea of genetic engineering, as they are wont to do, trying to improve/perfect the human species, rather than using it for the more sensible goal of eliminating/curing genetic diseases.
Strange New Worlds raises the question of whether it was right for Earth to enshrine their own disasters with genetic engi
Was the USS Discovery upgraded completely, or does it still keep its original technology?
Inspired by a bit of discussion over on discord, where there was an argument over whether the USS Discovery had been upgraded by the 32nd century Federation.
On the one hand, the Discovery did undergo a vast overhaul, being fitted with an upgraded power/propulsion system, detachable nacelles and the works, however, we also know at the end of Discovery Season 3, that Burnham resetting the Discovery's computers effectively put much of the ship back to the 23rd century baseline (or as much of one as it could return to). We're also shown that the Discovery still uses microtapes in its computer room.
So was the Discovery upgraded completely to 32nd century standards, or is it still a 23rd century ship underneath the 32nd century paint?
The Federation should not have been surprised that their holograms developed sapience
We already know from TOS that Mutlitronic computers are able to develop sapience, with the M-5 computer being specifically designed to "think and reason" like a person, and built around Dr Daystrom's neural engrams.
However, we also know from Voyager that the holomatrix of their Mk 1 EMH also incorporates Multitronic technology, and from DS9 that it's also used in mind-reading devices.
Assuming that the EMH is designed to more or less be a standard hologram with some medical knowledge added in, it shouldn't have come as a surprise that holograms were either sapient themselves, or were capable of developing sapience. It would only be a logical possibility if technology that allowed human-like thought and reasoning into a hologram.
If anything, it is more of a surprise that sapient holograms like the Doctor or Moriarty hadn't happened earlier.
Bringing technologies back from the future ensures that the Federation won't develop their present counterparts
We often see technology from the future brought back to the present, whether as a case of a chance encounter, or something more.
However, it’s also fairly uncommon to see those technologies pop up against after they’ve been introduced. One such example is the ablative armour generators that Admiral Janeway fitted to the Voyager, being prototypes from a future Starfleet, which are seen in that episode, and then never again, even in shows that are set after the time she left.
The reason for this might be that the Federation does not want to run the risk of being accused of violating the temporal prime directive (or accidentally running afoul of it in some other way), and shelves that particular technology entirely.
From their standpoint, it would be rather difficult to separate a technology that the Federation developed of their own accord, compared to one that they might have developed from being inspired by, or reverse-engineering a piece of future technology, so they shelve it, rat
Posts and Comments not always sending.
I'm not sure whether it's an issue with Federation, synchronisation, or something else, but I've noticed that sometimes, when writing a post, and submitting it, the Lemmy interface will hang on some posts, getting stuck on the loading circle, which is probably related to the known issue with the interface not sending or interpreting errors correctly.
As an example, I was writing a post and a comment on a non-local community, and noticed that I sometimes had to copy the post, cancel the "sending" post, and paste it, and try again for it to "take" and the post to send successfully.
However, since I can't recreate the issue reliably, I'm not sure whether it's an issue with server load on lemmy.world, or an issue with Federation.
EDIT: I checked some of the posts and communities that I was having issues posting in, and it seems to be affect both local and Federated/remote communities.
One of them was on !nostupidquestions, and another was on !startrek@startrek.website.