As long as they aren’t putting ridiculous terms on model usage like SD3 and the weights are provided I’m happy with it

Total water absorption doesn’t matter that much because the significant thing is surface texture. If you’re going to dry them anyway you might as well instead wash them without directly pouring water on them.

This assumes you’re going to fry them. If you want raw mushrooms in a salad, it’s going to be a lot more noticeable.

Running mushrooms under water makes them soggy, that’s just reality. You can get them just as clean wiping them with a slightly damp paper towel or cloth without that happening.

Was this “Unmoderated” in the sense of the classic Reddit move of first banning the moderators so they can ban the sub without saying why?

I don’t think the use of the word “expose” in that sentence is meant to assert that the core of satire is that it must be right. Satire is a type of media/expression, it would make little sense to have a taxonomy of media where what genre something is depends on the personal political affiliations and beliefs of the observer, where saying what genre something is in is a declaration of those beliefs.

Why object to calling it satire? It’s obviously closely copying the format of other media primarily known by that label, I don’t think there’s any other term that works as well to describe what sort of thing it is.

To be clear I don’t think satire, political propaganda, and bigotry are mutually exclusive things. I’m not saying I think babylon bee is satire as a way of defending it, just that it mostly meets the definition.

idk I’d say the OP headline is technically satire, it just falls flat because the thing being satirized (Biden rigging the election) is not true and blatant misinformation.

it’s like The Onion except strong right wing christian extremist bias

I’m not sure how you’d tell unless there is some reputable source that claims they saw this search result themselves, or you found it yourself. Making a fake is as easy as inspect element -> edit -> screenshot.

Yeah but it’s funny in a different way; they are giving ignorant and condescending advice because while big cats have impressive hunting abilities, they don’t normally hunt mice.

entertainment where you can laugh at how they put effort into creating an illusion of professionalism but left enough gaps to make it clear it was just an illusion and he’s in way over his head

I liked the time when he tried to use linux and ended up destroying his os by blindly following googled command line instructions

Relevant Snowden quote:

Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say

I pay for vpn service anonymously even though I probably don’t need to, as my main use is torrenting. I can see a remote possibility that vpn payment records at some point end up being used against pirates, even just as some kind of risk factor flagging, in the same vein as what you are saying: “If someone is paying for a vpn, surely they’re doing something bad?” In countries that really want to crack down on speech and human rights, vpns get banned outright to varying success, and if you can’t pay anonymously in that situation you’re pretty screwed, this hurts those people.

In general I think everyone should be trying for some level of actual privacy online as a matter of principle, just because of how everyone being fully tracked and observed puts way too much power in the hands of those watching.

The current administration and its agencies have clear contempt for any sort of crypto privacy they have shown in a variety of ways. The Tornado Cash sanction and criminal charges, recent Bitcoin mixer criminal charges, the proposed rule putting a “Primary Money Laundering Concern” black mark on people seeking crypto privacy in virtually any way… if it’s possible to still purchase online services privately after this, I’m sure they will go on to take further measures to try to close the “loophole”. They don’t want anyone doing things without being able to monitor them.

Local stable diffusion takes more effort to get good results, I think that is the main reason.

AI can help you learn by chiming in about things you didn’t know you didn’t know. I wanted to compare images to ones in a dataset, that may have been resized, and the solution the AI gave me involved blurring the images slightly before comparing them. I pointed out that this seemed wrong, because won’t slight differences in the files produce different hashes? But the response was that the algorithm being used was perceptual hashing, which only needs images to be approximately the same to produce the same hash, and the blurring was to make this work better. Since I know AI often makes shit up I of course did more research and tested that the code worked as described, but it did and was all true.

If I hadn’t been using AI, I would have wasted a bunch of time trying to get the images pixel perfect identical to work with a naive hashing algorithm because I wasn’t aware of a better way to do it. Since I used AI, I learned more about what solutions are available, more quickly. I find that this happens pretty often; there’s actually a lot that it knows that I wasn’t aware of or had a false impression of. I can see how someone might use AI as a programming crutch and fail to pay attention or learn what the code does, but it can also be used in a way that helps you learn.

I remember r/Bitcoin is especially notorious with that. I don’t think it’s a problem with all of them though.

Maybe he got a recycled IP previously belonging to someone else who was banned

if somehow the population of pirates increases, that will lead to maybe tighter controls on piracy or a more global crackdown of piracy

Yes, I think most people accept that this is how it would likely work. And it actually is the case that many pirates do not agree with what I am saying, and see this as something to be avoided by keeping piracy niche, and would like to preserve their own access that way, and use this reasoning to argue against greater accessibility. But it’s kind of like voting; any action you can take as an individual affecting the broader society is unlikely to make much difference in determining outcomes that affect you personally. It’s possible to mistakenly imagine that they do, it’s possible to not be thinking about it at all, and it’s possible to have different ideas about what you would like to affect; for instance a person wanting to keep piracy niche might have some idea of a group identity of more technically literate and connected insiders like themselves, and want to act to protect the interests of maintaining media access for that group.

To me, this subjectivity of goals and the relative absence of direct personal consequences make these choices very unlike a game of prisoner’s dilemma, in which you can expect the consequences of your choices to be unambiguous, tangible, and personally experienced. Instead of working out an optimization problem for clearly defined personal interests that are the same for all actors, the task is one of empathy and imagination - what can the world look like, what should it look like, who do we care about and what do we want for them? How do different visions of the world weigh against each other?

We definitely don’t want more people to pirate

Many of us do. Why would we seed torrents, donate to crackers and repackers, offer useful advice etc. if we did not? Personally I would prefer for everyone to stop paying money for software and media entirely, and for the industries that produce those things to collapse, and the legal structures protecting them to be dismantled, because I think we would create better stuff without financial incentives. Not everyone is operating under your idea of a rational perspective here.