Beacon

joined 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Immediately stop the war against Ukraine and pull back to the 1990s border, then enlist international experts to improve the country and peacefully integrate with the global community

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The are plenty of situations where anyone could tell the difference, such as low lighting conditions. In low light an old phone will make a photo that's just a brown blur, while a new phone will be a sharp clear photo of the scene.

But if you're happy with what you have then í wouldn't want to talk you into buying something else. The old iPhone se is a imo a much better design than newer iPhones

[–] [email protected] 118 points 2 months ago (21 children)

No way, your premise is wrong. Photos from a 2024 phone are MASSIVELY better than a photo from phones that came before a camera bump existed. The last iPhone that didn't have a bump was the iPhone 6.

EDIT

Actually it was the iPhone 5s

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fresh roast beef, 39 cents per pound

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You need to specify whether you're taking about digital or analog technology, or some other limit on the question, because i think you're not looking for answers like "fire" or as another user replied "shoes".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think existing fraud laws would just cover cases where someone tries to sell the fake as if its the real thing.

For instance let's say i made an AI replica of Arnold Schwarzenegger and put it in a movie. If i said "come see my movie with Schwarzenegger in it" then that would be fraud, but if i said "come see my movie with a replica of Schwarzenegger in it" then that wouldn't be fraud.

Or at least that's what i think is correct, but IANAL

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No, this legislation is specifically about creating fake replicas. An actual recording of you in a space where you have no expectation of privacy is legal.

But with that said, you already can request meta/Google/etc remove photos of you. Though i have no idea if they actually take action on those requests.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ah, now THAT is a valid reason!! We all have our own preferences, and by itself that's totally fine

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Take a further look and i think you'll find those passages don't mean what you think they mean. On biblehub look at the most up to date translations, and look at the commentaries section - https://biblehub.com/james/5-12.htm

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You think random words should be not said for no reason?

Also, you didn't respond to the main part of my point

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Ask for an empty bag to toss the bad kernels into

view more: ‹ prev next ›