Oh no, we may have to go back to an Internet where people posted web pages because they wanted to share information rather than to make a buck.

Being invaded by Russia.

It was a very Kerbal landing technique they were attempting, got to respect them for attempting new things even when it's their first try at a lander.

Last I heard, speculation was that the solar panels were pointing to the west and so it might "wake up" again later in the Lunar day when the Sun gets past zenith. They landed in Lunar morning to maximize the usable duration of sunlight, so right now the panels would be pointed directly away from it.

A "51% attack" isn't really meaningful for something like the Fediverse because there's no concept of any particular instance or group of instances being "authoritative." There's no special benefit to be had from owning a majority of the instances or users or whatever other metric you want to measure by.

If tomorrow Reddit were to magically federate, it would instantly have the majority of threaded conversation going on in the Fediverse under its control. If the day afterward it defederated again, it wouldn't mean that it had somehow "become" the Fediverse and the rest of us were being shed like irrelevant detritus. It's nothing at all like a cryptocurrency fork, where there's a strong incentive to follow whatever the "majority" fork is doing because that's where the money is.

Chauvin was not sentenced to be stabbed 22 times. As awful a person as he likely is, I would rather not see extrajudicial killing be praised.

Performing extrajudicial killing is what got him behind bars in the first place, after all. Quite rightly so.

Investment companies are often only able to buy other companies like this when they're already declining significantly.

Magazines in general are on their way out. It makes me nostalgic-sad too, but the world is changing and this is one of the ways in which it is changing.

Misleading. Ad blocker installations also rose. This isn't people leaving adblocking, this is people changing to better ones.

I feel like that "corporate wants you to find the differences between these two photos" meme. Isn't everyone in those photos, in both the top and bottom rows, white?

Edit: Ah, I see, OP has given this a highly misleading title. The "whiteness" of the faces is not actually particularly relevant. In another thread someone summarized what the article is actually about:

For anyone who doesn’t want to read the paper, they basically took an 60 white men and 60 white women, and showed them a whole bunch of white faces, half of which were generated by AI. It turns out that AI faces were rated as more human-like than actual humans, and they had some hypothesis why. Principally that AI, by its nature, generates images close to “average”, while real people tend to have features that are not “average”. The reason the study focused on white people is that most AI have been trained on white faces, so AI tends to do better with white faces.

I mean, it's kind of inevitable. According to the stats on this page the total biomass of our livestock is 3.9% of all animal biomass, the total biomass of humans specifically is 2.3% of all animal biomass, and all wild mammals is only 0.3% of the biomass (with all wild birds accounting for a further 0.1%).

According to this article 38% of Earth's land area is used for agriculture. The remaining 62% is presumably generally among the less fertile sorts of land - mountains, deserts, etc.

It's not even a question of climate change. We've reduced the total volume of non-human-centric biomass on Earth, replacing much of it with a monoculture of our highly successful species and its domesticated associates. We've also spread around some hangers-on, like rats, that have filled a lot of niches that used to be occupied by more diverse local species. The remaining biomass simply cannot sustain as many species any more.

The only way to stop or reverse this trend would be to reduce the human population and increase its agricultural efficiency. Fortunately, that is possible. But only through continuing advancement of our technology and standard of living.

This is superficially funny, of course. But I've seen it before and after thinking about it for a while I find myself coming to the defense of the Torment Nexus and the tech company that brought it into reality.

Science fiction authors are not necessarily the best authorities when it comes to evaluating the ethical or real-world implications of the technologies they dream up. Indeed, I think they are often particularly bad at that sort of thing. Their primary goal is to craft captivating narratives that engage readers by introducing conflicts and dilemmas that make for compelling stories. When they imagine a new technology they aren't going to get paid unless they come up with a story in which that new technology poses some kind of threat that the heroes need to overcome. The dark side of these technologies is deliberately emphasized by the authors to create tension and drama in their stories.

Tech companies, on the other hand, have an entirely different set of considerations. Their goal isn't just to recreate something from a sci-fi novel for the sake of it; rather, they are motivated by solving real-world problems. They wouldn't build the Torment Nexus unless they figured that they could sell it to someone, and that they wouldn't get shut down for doing something society would reject. There are regulatory frameworks around this kind of thing.

If you look back through older science fiction you can find all sorts of "cautionary tales" against technologies that have turned out to be just fine. "Fahrenheit 451" warned against the proliferation of television entertainment, but there's been plenty of rich culture developed for that medium. "Brave New World" warned against genetic engineering, but that's turned out to be a great technology for curing diseases and improving crop yields. The submarine in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was seen as unstoppable and disruptive, but nowadays submersibles have plenty of nonmilitary applications.

I'd want to know more about what exactly the Torment Nexus is before I automatically assume it's a bad idea just because some sci-fi writer claimed it was.

I've been seeing this news article circling around the internet all day, and I have yet to see anyone mention what the monoblock actually is. It's starting to feel like some kind of mysterious primal artifact, like maybe the master computer from which all flavors of Linux originated.

Indeed. In a thread a couple of days back on a different (though related) subject I was accused of being a rape apologist because I was insistent on the presumption of innocence and the beyond-reasonable-doubt standards that need to be overcome when accusations like this are slung. But it works the same in the other direction too - we can't assume that an accuser is guilty of fraud or libel or filing false reports or whatever just because they failed to prove their case.

It would not be good for justice if these situations ended up being "now that the accusation has been made someone is going to go to jail, either the accused or the accuser." The Thunderdome is not a good model to emulate.