I’m curious—can you tell the lighting isn’t rated from these images, or just because of the number / cost?
Also curious about the chains—does that means they can’t be reused for long if they’ve been outdoors? I assume there’s plenty of regulation around that kind of thing.
Wait, what? I’m sending it back…
And leading (being in front) doesn’t rhyme with leading (the metal on a roof).
Not yet.
Well, you have to know your symbols for that part of it. I bought it mainly for the danger.
Where else :)
!theyknew@lemmy.sdf.org seems to be most active
This was on a custom domain, and I started off with xyz-1@domain.com, and when it became saturated I moved to -2, -3, etc. But then got lazy and used my current ‘version’ to sign up for things I’d want to keep, not just any old random stuff. So now it’s a mix, and much better ways of doing that exist, like +tagging and hide-my-email services.
I even wondered about setting up a catch-all account on the domain so I can just invent them on the fly, and then when one becomes spammy, create an ‘actual’ account as a spamhole.
I have a question—I suspect the answer is yes even if indirectly, but thought I’d ask in case you already thought of this. I have many email addresses, and one in particular is the source of lots of spam. Unfortunately it’s also one I’ve used to login to many services I actually use so I can’t easily delete it. Can I use Paperweight to make a list of services I need to go change my email on before consigning my 20+ year old address to the bin?
I think Hugo Rifkind nailed it back in 2018 with his shit cheese submarine.
You think there’s no difference between a technology and a corporation pushing a technology?
Yes, I suspect we are. Having said that, LLMs even today are sometimes useful for search—perhaps only because traditional search has become so poor.
Whether they are any use or not is a totally different question to whether they’re worth the money being piled into them though. And that’s my original point really—it’s the behaviour of large corporations that’s more of an issue than some large matrix operations doing clever things with language tokens.
Ok, I have a note (and happy to run the risk of being ‘boo’d’ for making a ‘speach’. There, I feel better now).
It seems to me most of the (current) animosity is very squarely aimed at the large corporations, but comes under the general heading of ‘anti-AI’. I was working in that field in the early ‘90s and it had some interesting applications which we’ve seen deliver some real benefits. The recent avalanche of ‘our LLM can replace everything else you have’ is the problem, not AI. And large groups of people tend to prefer a nice black & white answer not a nuanced conversation. I’m not for a second defending Schmidt on that, but I worry the real important stuff will get lost in the noise.
Why did you censor the word ‘boobs’ by removing a letter?
And didn’t mean to be snarky—but it’s probably a good thing they didn’t just name the plugins in the headline as avoiding them by name isn’t the solution here…
Did you try reading it?
It enables malicious versions of legitimate Obsidian plugins (‘Shell Commands’ and ‘Hider’) that are present in the shared vault.
Note these are deliberately altered versions, not the originals.
That’s true, but neither of those options are POSIX-compliant. You have to set POSIX_ME_SLIMY for clean to also condition.
You missed a ‘?’ I think you meant:
input?.map?.(item => …