Huh, that’s so, it was there last January. It used to follow this paragraph (still there today anyway), which contains a similar criticism with citation:

It is widely used and has sometimes been criticised for its methodology.[4] Scientific studies[5] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[6] with NewsGuard[7] and with BuzzFeed journalists.

So if those are considered fact-based, there’s no need to delve further.

However, Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as “generally unreliable”, recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

I haven’t read the graphic novel of the Handmaid’s tale, but I don’t know if I would read the book to 14 year olds.

This reads like the ugly kind of censorship. Where: 1) without knowledge of the graphic book, calling for its universal removal from school libraries. 2) not knowing if 14 year-olds should read it, ban it (i.e. ban all books that can’t be read by the youngest library patron; a notion few books could survive). And 3) belittling people (calling those who disagree with uninformed censorship “ass-mad up the wazoo”).

Now there is a little nuance to the post, but it’s outweighed by crude assessments.

Or as Dijkstra puts it: “asking whether a machine can think is as dumb as asking if a submarine can swim”.

Alan Turing puts it similarly, the question is nonsense. However, if you define “machine” and “thinking”, and redefine the question to mean: is machine thinking differentiable from human thinking; you can answer affirmatively, theoretically (rough paraphrasing). Though the current evidence suggests otherwise (e.g. AI learning from other AI drifts toward nonsense).

For more, see: Computing Machinery and Intelligence, and Turing’s original paper (which goes into the Imitation Game).

Oooooh, okay, I misread. Apologies.

Yet use AI (possibly) to determine users’ AI answers.

The “running joke” used by millions for serious and playful projects? [edited for punctuation]

Used to know someone who looked for cars around a restaurant, or long lines waiting to get into a tiny cafe, asked wait staff for interesting places they liked to go; went into non-chain stores where locals shopped (off the main streets); asked walkers and service station workers for directions. Always had wild stories about what happened, if you could get past their private nature. Weird fucker, unpredictable, never could get used to’m. Likeable enough, though.

Let’s extend this thought experiment a little. Consider just forum posts; the numbers will be somewhat similar for articles and other writings, as well as photos and videos.

A bot creates how many more posts than a human? Being (ridiculously) conservative, we’ll say 10x more.

On day one: 10 humans are posting (for simplicity’s sake) 10 times a day, totaling 100 posts. Bot is posting 100 a day. For a total of 200 human and bot posts; 50% of which are the bot.

In your (extended) example, at the end of a year: 10 humans are still posting 100 times a day. The 10 bots are posting a total of 1000 times a day. Bots are at 90%, humans 10%.

This statistic can lead you to think human participation in the Internet is difficult to find.

Returning to reality, consider how inhuman AI bots are, with each probably able to outpost humans by millions or billions of times under millions of aliases each. If you find search engines, articles, forums, reviews, and such are bonkers now, just wait a few years. Predicting general chaotic nonsense for the Internet is a rational conclusion, with very few islands of humanity. Unless bots are stopped.

Right now though, bots are increasing.

Back in 2000, there was something like that for the kernel with SELinux (Security-Enhanced Linux). Which continues to live in various distributions’ kernels. Not a full O/S though, and not generally regarded as a PoS.

What if the RAID 5 gets encrypted with ransomware, how many backups are there?

As to how rationales go, this is the clearest.

I hate it.

LibreOffice does “develop and maintain a certification system for professionals of various kinds who deliver and sell services around LibreOffice.”

The judge leaned back in a squeaky chair, self-righteously satisfied that the letter of the law had been followed.

The spirit of the law lay trampled on the ground, unable to get up or even breathe. Until the public, individuals carrying the breath of actual humanity, walked into the judge’s chambers, giving the spirit mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Offering a mirror to the judge, who didn’t know how reflection works.

While the article discusses antibiotic resistant gonorrhea in China, the US, and Canada, the problem is not about one country, or one country versus another; but rather…

… this is not just an alarming finding for China but also a “pressing public health concern” for the entire world.

After a bit of research, I’m forced by facts (NS records can be cached for an undetermined time) to see what you’re saying. Thank you for teaching me.

The workings are, of course, a bit more complicated than what either of us have said (here’s a taste), but there is a situation as you describe, where separating the registrar from the name servers, and the name servers from the domain, could save the domain from going down.

If a registrar goes out of business, ICANN transfers the domain(s) to another registrar.

If a name server business fails, you change name servers through your registrar.

You can’t really fix registrar services in your name server, nor name server problems through your registrar. (Unless, of course, your registrar is also your name server.)

Like, say, slow down an older phone so one has to buy a new faster phone? Source

A registration system where only registered parts are allowed, so no clean room (software engineering) third-party manufacturing? Every single part has to be registered with the original device manufacturer? This seems like a detour around right to repair.

Source: Passmark (CPU Benchmark).