partial_accumen

I’m way ahead of them. I self sterilized. I don’t want any hand in bringing more people into this shit show.

A camp? Its not like he’s ever suggesting sending people to camps before. Oh wait:

source

See? Its not a camp, its a “wellness farm”. Aren’t you relieved now? /s

For those trying to keep the spelling straight, it helps me to think the last two letters stand for “Accountability Act” meaning it can never be spelled “HIPPA” as there is only one “a”.

Try embroidering your “logo with lots of colors and gradients, depth, lighting” on a polo shit and see how little of it actually translates. Or even a one color print job on a mailing. It will look like an unrecognizable hot garbage smudge.

My guess is disgraced retired general and paid Russia Today personality Michael Flynn.

I don’t understand why generative AI will kill making money from art. As you said, it’s just a tool.

If an artist can make a web comic in a fraction of the time they used to, they can multiply their output and thus possibly sell to more.

You’re presenting the scenario of an artist using a tool to create more art. I think the concern is someone who would have hired an artist uses the tool themselves to make art instead of hiring the artist. Hence the comment @cm0002@lemmy.world made that GenAI won’t kill art, but it will kill the ability to make money from art.

This isn’t a new thing that just started with GenAI though. Entire professions of commercial art evaporated with the introduction of computers. How many typesetters were employed by major newspapers around the world 50 years ago? With the introduction of computers the number has drastically reduced. This is also true of graphic artists that used to work all day over a light box, waxer, and Exacto knife. Now all of that is done with far fewer people in a computer. I don’t see how GenAI different from those technologies and how they impacted artist jobs.

I have to assume it was this pill:

Whats missing from the article is any kind of seized evidence that would show he had the means to actually carry out any of this threats. As in, could this just be a “talking tough” keyboard warrior? I’d expect they’d need to find lots of guns, poison, explosives, etc. There isn’t any mention of that kind of thing in the article.

I think the article is telling us in reverse order of discovery which makes it VERY confusing to parse:

As in:

Investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force retraced the roots of the digital messages Payne allegedly sent to the media outlets.

Okay, so where did the “digital messages” come from?

According to the affidavit, Payne used a Proton email address,

Okay, they knew the source of the message was Proton email. One subpoena of Proton later, they know the IP address(s) of the email client/app logging into Proton. So now they have a whole bunch of IP addresses of VPN exit nodes. So they reach out to the VPN provider:

Other unusual activity was traced through Payne’s VPN

So they ask the VPN provider to provide the origin address of the VPN logins, and come back to a cell phone (network) provider

or network provider.

So they ask the network provider to provide the info on the owner, except its a burner, so the provider doesn’t know. Hmm, okay so they know its coming from Burner Phone X, but not who owns Burner Phone X. Mr Google, Mr Microsoft, etc, do you have any activity from these Mobile phone company IP addresses at this time?

That information is tracked by Google

Ah! So Mr Google does. Anything stand out to you with the activity you’re seeing?

Investigators were alerted to his accounts after finding an unusually high number of log-ins and failed log-ins from an unfamiliar devices, locations, or networks. That information is tracked by Google, per the affidavit.

Okay, so its more than just than Burner Phone X accessing these Google accounts/sessions. Yes, the same web sessions/cookies were also used by devices belonging to another Google account, that of Payne.

Okay we’ve arrested Payne, could this just be an account/device hijacking and Payne be innocent? Well we also seized a rando cell phone with incriminating evidence on it. Could this have been planted?

Messages from his burner phone, too, matched the number Payne had listed in his personal contact info while applying for unemployment benefits in February.

So someone texted something at some point to text Burner Phone X. Who was that origin texter sending to Burner Phone X? Payne. So unlikely it was planted and more confirmation it was Payne sending the original threats.

My guess is that he was using his phone for tethering to a laptop, and he had a google account associated with his browser. So even though he was going through a VPN, it would show THIS SET OF CREDENTIALS logging in from all the different exit nodes of his VPN provider.

Alternatively, he could have logged into his Google account from the burner phone (not a good idea), or even just created a new Google account, which again, would show logins from a bunch of different exit nodes of his VPN provider.

Messages from his burner phone, too, matched the number Payne had listed in his personal contact info while applying for unemployment benefits in February.

If you put your real name on it or associate that phone number with your name, then doesn’t that stop meeting the definition of a burner phone?

EDIT: I re-read the wording of the article, and I don’t think he used the burner phones number associated with his name as I posted before. The article says this:

"Messages from his burner phone, too, matched the number Payne had listed in his personal contact info while applying for unemployment benefits in February. "

It sounds like he used is REAL phone/number to apply for unemployment, but then at a later time he used is REAL phone to text a message to his burner phone. So the article is saying the “messages found on his burner phone” contained his REAL phone number. This would mean authorities would have had to have the burner phone in hand. So this wasn’t the way he was found, simply a way that it was confirmed it was him.

I understood it as power causes responsibility, and therefore, no power means no responsibility.

I agree with this.

If they’re just correlated, then there’s no way of knowing if no power is also correlated with no responsibility.

If you’re using that line of thought, then I’ll also agree with you that there would be strong correlation with “no power equals no responsibility”, but I’m not sure how that fact is helpful or moves us forward in a line of thinking. When someone cites the argument of “correlation vs causation” usually means “we can’t tell if its actually causation. Its possible its just correlation”. Yet here we agree it is unambiguously causation. Your first sentence in this post encapsulate this perfectly.

“I understood it as power causes responsibility”. cause = causation

This is why I was confused with your citation of the “correlation vs causation” argument.

I’ve seen the same thing in some people over 60. The ones that don’t do this are the ones that continue to embrace new ideas, read, travel to experience other cultures, and learn/speak additional languages.

I don’t know if there is a magic formula to avoid the fate you’re describing. I’m doing what I’m seeing those that don’t fall into that trap do.

At the time, Dr. Steven Hotze, the sole trustee and beneficiary of the Braidwood Management company, said he was unwilling to pay for PrEP or STI screenings for his employees. “They are consequences of a patient’s choice to engage in drug use, prostitution, homosexual conduct, or sexual promiscuity – all of which are contrary to Dr. Hotze’s sincere religious beliefs,” the complaint read.

How about rape, Mr Hotze? Do patients that contract STIs when they are the victims of rape deserve to just suffer even more with STIs after their attack? How about the victims loved ones? Do you expect them to shun the victims of rape if they contracted an STI from it?

They should reply with only:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I’m not seeing a correlation only argument here. Where would there be correlation without causation with what I’ve posted?

I always thought the bigger miss of the common phrase is this: If “With great power comes great responsibility” then the converse must also be true “With NO POWER comes NO responsibility”. The level of responsibility must scale in direct proportion to the amount of power you have. If your boss is blaming you for something you have little to no control over, then it isn’t your responsibility, and you deserve no blame.

Your manager saying “You need to find someone to cover your shift” would then be bullshit. Unless you have the power to hire additional staff, allow for allowed time off for regular life events, or increase the pay of staff to make others more readily want to take the shift, I don’t see enough power for it to be your responsibility.

Because they don’t want to be the US citizen in question.

I have no problem with the work these scientists are doing establishing the basic research and proving the principal works. Basic research is the foundation that leads to future large scale projects. However, at this time we are a long LONG way from any large scale practical application of this. The amount of power generated is very VERY small, and that assumes everything goes perfectly.

In a real rain storm dirt could easily block the tubes cutting off the effect and stopping power generation, as an example. This doesn’t mean the underlying principal is flawed, but more work will have to be done to make a practical application out of this, now proven, principal.

It took the USA about 80 years to build the soft power that let it influence much of the world. trump is destroying all of that in less than 6 months.