You also need to know what the internal GitHub event json looks like. Using act was such a pain I just gave up. Have tried several times now and it’s just easier to create a second repo just for testing and overwrite it with your current repo anytime you need to do major workflow changes.
No, these types have been the Christians making news since the 80s. There are plenty of actual Christians who actually read the Bible and know what it says, over the maniacs who just say they’re Christian because they grew up in the south. Just look at the split of the Methodist church for exactly how many churches have quietly been teaching true Christianity for decades. The extremists were loud and embarrassed the church and so the church cut them out.
If there was any doubt that they were using this to get people to register to vote, this added detail should make it pretty clear. They were telling people who weren’t registered to register in order to get paid / enter a lottery.
Which is super illegal, so they just admitted it in court. They don’t care though because if it works they just get the carrot to pardon them.
The top of the monitor shouldn’t be at eye level. Two thirds up the monitor should be at eye level.
Not at all. If these people actually read the Bible they’d be completely fine with trans people. They don’t, they just make up shit to fit their preexisting beliefs and then call themselves Christian.
0% would have gotten through if the judge had done their job.
They literally told you how it’s used for practical applications and you just ignored it. It makes cryptography stronger, hence your password less likely to be broken. National secrets less likely to be leaked. Your identity less likely to be stolen.
No first time ever. This isn’t a supercomputer, it’s a distributed cloud network that they’re referring to as a supercomputer because it has a lot of power. It’s not a supercomputer in any other sense of the word, as it’s set up on cloud providers around the globe rather than in one location in the same room.
Isn’t this an illegal sweepstakes?
I know zero people that belong in either of those groups. I’m pretty sure one degree of separation from me also have zero of those people in their friend groups. Anecdotes aren’t evidence.
I completely misread the title as “jimmy carter voted ‘thanks’ to the GOP’s least favorite law”. Which is very confusing
Need a third button for Texas
The archive is of the “you’ve viewed your last complimentary article” page.
Hey’s spam filtering is a thousand times better than Gmail at least nowadays. Mostly because hey is literally built on the premise that you whitelist who you want to get emails from. The rest are blackholed. But the spam filtering is still very good for the approval part of it.
Your logic is just absolutely horrendous and outright wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation.
If you want to make sure AI art can’t be copyrighted there are other actual logical reasons that I’ve already covered. Arguing with you when you clearly don’t understand what you’re talking about is incredibly annoying though so I’m gonna wish you a good day.
The mama bear didn’t kill the bear that killed her cub. The mama bear won the contest. The headline is terribly worded.
Your logic means that every single photo touched by the “content aware delete” in Photoshop is ineligible for copyright which is hilariously incorrect. Your logic would not hold up in court (and hasn’t!).
That’s like asking “How many alterations do I have to make to an image of the Mona Lisa to transform it into something I can copyright it as my own work?”
No. No it’s not. The fact you still can’t understand the difference between controlling an image with tools and asking an AI to do everything for you is pretty dang clear. Your logic resides entirely on the user doing everything which is not how art works. Many, many, many, MANY pieces of art do not involve the artist doing anything except setting up the initial conditions and seeing what happens. Since your beliefs hinge so heavily on the fact that you think the artist has to control all aspects of the creation you are refusing to even notice that copyright has held up for these cases, cases not involving AI at all, cases hundreds of years old.
Of course if they want to lose their copyright, then they are free to tell everyone that they didn’t really have any control over the output. See: Monkey selfie.
And here we see you misunderstanding why the monkey selfie wasn’t copyrightable. It was not because the artist didn’t control the output. It was because non-humans cannot hold copyright. This is the true reason that AI art shouldn’t be copyrightable. But even legal experts agree that if he had taken it to court that he would have gotten copyright on the monkey selfie. https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/monkey-selfie-copyright-lessons-originality-photographs-and-internet-jurisdiction
Your logic around this is not only flawed, it’s just absolutely incorrect and has been shown to be incorrect in court. Control of the artist is not the only arbiter of copyright and you seem to not even have a basic grasp of how basic features like content aware delete in Photoshop even work. I can guess pretty solidly that you have never touched Photoshop nor bothered with something like control net in order to understand the implications of their use as a tool in art are.
That’s what he’s saying…