Interesting. On the other hand, when bringing a newborn home from the hospital, the take-home literature instructs new parents to turn the water heater down to 120 F to prevent risk of scalding.
I wouldn't worry about it. Almost every modern boiler will bump up the temperature to 60C / 140F once a week to prevent Legionnaire's, may even be a mandatory feature depending on where you live.
This new procedure and equipment is partially rolled out at TSA checkpoints across the US, has been for a couple of years now. The agent's computer shows the flight information. No reason to have an extra step to scan a boarding pass since the computer pulls it all up anyways.
To get through TSA as a member of the general public, you have to have a ticket (or a non-traveler gate pass) in your real name (matching your ID, soon to be real ID requirement) for a flight leaving in the next N hours. International flights check your passport at the boarding gate. For domestic, sure, you could swap to another boarding pass purchased under a different name, but what's the threat model there? You've already been screened.
Say you've done a crime that will be discovered in a few days. You buy a ticket to Detroit and next week the fbi will be wasting its time looking for you in Michigan and trying to convince Canada to search for you in Ontario.
In reality you hopped on a flight to El Paso under a fake name and you are deep into Mexico by now.
Wouldn’t it be pretty obvious you never actually boarded your flight to Detroit? They scan your ticket when you board.
Though totally agree you could fly on a different flight under a fake name assuming that the airlines don’t sync up their records with the IDs the TSA scans at the checkpoints.
I suspect there’s other less visible signals that would make this harder. For example your flight under a fake name might be flagged for being an unknown name/person. Also if you’re on the run it’s hard to buy a flight under a fake name anonymously without a paper trail back to yourself.
Right here, in your own translation: "...I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction A for individual components and more modern than those of NATO countries and with a threat to the territorial integrity of our country to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal, this is not a bluff..."
Hard to read that as anything other than a threat to use nukes. What else could he be talking about there?
You're missing my point. Various news sources are reporting that Putin "threatened to use nuclear weapons" with the patently obvious suggestion that he was threatening a first strike and explicitly said that he would use nuclear weapons in that. Now I'm not disputing the inference that can be drawn from what he said. That's obvious. What I'm trying to point out is that this 'inference' we're all drawing is now being reported repeatedly as an actual statement he made. Which is completely untrue.
It's like if I said "adam has threatened to kick me in the bollocks. Well, if he does so, he should remember I have steel toe-capped boots too!" and the press all reported that as "Normille threatens to kick adam in the bollocks".
It ignores both the fact that I actually said I'd only retaliate if adam kicked me in the bollocks first AND the fact that I didn't actually say I would kick adam in the bollocks, but just reminded him that he wasn't the only one wearing big boots.
It may sound pedantic. But reporting what you inferred from what someone said as a direct quote attributed to that person is not honest journalism.
You are in the wrong here. Putin did threaten to use nuclear weapon when he said “we will certainly use all the means at our disposal, this is not a bluff”. There is no misleading there. He tried to justify it by saying that’d be in response to some threat to Russia. We all know Nazi has been the justification for his invasion of Ukraine, no matter how ridiculous it is. Do you think he wouldn’t fabricate another threat to justify his use of nuclear weapon?
As for reporting it as threaten to use nuclear weapon as “first strike”, I haven’t seen any news that specifically mentioned “first strike”. Care to give an example?
>Putin did threaten to use nuclear weapon when he said “we will certainly use all the means at our disposal, this is not a bluff”.
>I haven’t seen any news that specifically mentioned “first strike”. Care to give an example?
You're literally proving my point there.
In the first quote above you're telling me Putin did threaten to use nuclear weapons, even though he didn't say those actual words
In the second quote you're asking me to prove my 'inference' by showing you where those actual words were used.
So you want it both ways? We can infer what Putin meant and report that as direct quote. But when reporting statements from 'our side' we must stick to the actual words used?
If you can't see the inconsistency there, there's no point even debating this further.
Hillary Clinton conceded and said she'd support Trump. Recommend watching her concession speech. Trump still hasn't conceded two years on.
I wasn't aware of the interview that the article you posted above covers. What she says is dumb, and dangerous, and damages norms, and she shouldn't have said that.
That said, you have to admit that what Trump has done is many orders of magnitude more serious than this. It's effectively the official position of the Republican party that Trump actually won the 2020 election and that Biden is not the rightful POTUS. That's wildly dangerous in a democracy.
I admit I'm biased, but I don't remember this. I do remember concerns that Russia had interfered with the election, which is was found to be true (see Mueller report, Cambridge Analytica, etc.) There were also less well founded concerns that Trump himself was not only helped by but actually colluding with the Russians, which all evidence points to being false.
Most importantly, Hillary Clinton conceded the election the next day, as did Al Gore in 2000 once it was clear he didn't have a path to victory. Both pledged to support the victor. Trump hasn't done that, two years on.
The movie is right. Some survivors said it broke in half, many didn’t. It was thought it went down in one piece until the shipwreck was discovered in the 1980s.
How is Stable Diffusion on DreamStudio.ai so much faster than the reports here? Seems to only take 5-10 seconds to generate an image with the default settings.
I.e. How are they providing access to GPU compute several orders of magnitude more powerful than an M1, for free?
The guy behind it is an ex hedge fund manager. Using private funds he's built a massive fleet of A1000s at AWS.
So it's an enormous amount of compute created from private funds that he considers to be "for humanity". Currently, he funds it and is also the "GPU overlord", he exclusively decides which applications gets to use it.
His plan, or at least his claim, is to transform this situation in it being more diversely funded (institutions, businesses, even the UN) and for access to be decided by committee with main criteria it being useful for humanity.
Let's see if he sticks to his word, but I find it inspirational. AI was on a trajectory to be solely in the hands of a hand full of ultra rich companies that can afford to train and run it, and us poor mortals being at the whims of gatekeeper terms.
This guy is on a trajectory to put AI in the hands of the people. Not just for art, for everything. If he fully sees this through, he's destined to be a tech icon.
1. Dreamstudio is paid, with 2 EUR worth of credit for free.
2. The M1 GPU is an iGPU. A good iGPU, sure, but it's not anywhere near the performance of a dedicated, cooled GPU with dedicated VRAM.
On a 2060 Super with 8 GB of VRAM and with tensor cores it takes 15 seconds to infer with the default settings. If Dreamstudio uses deep learning GPUs then there is your answer to why it is as fast.
