isildun

The long story short is that you are being made to (by default) give up rights that you should have, particularly around class action lawsuits. It's strictly bad for you and strictly good for the company. They probably shouldn't be allowed to do this. Since they are, the only thing we can do to protest it is to opt-out.

Maybe you'll never sue discord. But maybe someday there will be a lawsuit brought against discord by someone else. A few ideas for topics might include a security vulnerability that leaks personal information, the use of discord content for AI training data (e.g. copyright issues), or the safety of minors online. If you don't opt-out, you can't be a part of such lawsuits if they ever become relevant. This overall weakens these lawsuits and empowers companies like discord to do more shady things with less fear of repercussions.

And, since the vast majority of people will never opt-out (since you're opted in by default) these kinds of lawsuits are weakened from the start. That's why every company in the US is doing this forced arbitration thing. At this point, they would be crazy not to since it's such a good thing for them and the average person doesn't care enough about it.

I'm almost starting to wonder if that's the plan. Just keep saying "IPO IPO IPO" to get funding from over-eager VCs who want a piece of the IPO before it becomes widely available.

But then you just never IPO. Keep making minor to moderate mistakes along the way so you can be all "weeeeell we would have IPO'd but insert thing here so we want to wait another 6 months to let it die down". Repeat until you're ready to quit, then actually IPO and ride the initial IPO high all the way down via golden parachute.

Instance friendly link: [email protected]

Oops. Good to know... I guess the main thing was simply that there was a BK in the right place relative to the 9792 km arc then.

This might be a stretch but McD can be franchised. If one franchisee pays top dollar for ad placement and other nearby franchises don't, it would be profitable for them to send you to that franchisee even if it's further.

...that being said I'm probably reading too much into it. Probably just your usual Google jank.

I'm not the person who found it originally, but I understand how they did it. We have three useful data points: you are 2.6 km from Burger King in Italy, that BK is on a street called "Via " and you are 9792 km from Burger King in Malaysia.

1. The upper BK in Malaysia is not censored, so we have its exact location.
2. Find a place in Italy that is 9792 km away using the Measure Distance tool on something like Google Maps.
3. Even though there are potentially multiple valid locations in Italy, we know you're within 2.6 km of another BK. Florence is sensible because there are BKs near the 9792 km mark.
4. Once we do that, we can find a spot that is both 9792 km from Malaysia BK and 2.6 km from a nearby BK on a street called "Via", effectively finding where the image was taken.

It's not perfect but it works well! This is the principle of how your GPS works. It's called triangulation. We only had distance to two points and one of them doesn't tell us the sub-kilometer distance. If we had distance to three points, we could find your EXACT location, within some error depending on how detailed the distance information was.

Huh, go figure. Thanks for the info! I honestly never would have found that myself.

I still think it should be possible to use in:channel on the channel-specific search though. One less button press and it can't be that confusing UX-wise since you have clear intent when doing it (if anything, the fact that the two searches work differently has to be more confusing UX-wise).

One of the biggest issues for me is that you can’t use ‘in:#channel’ anymore in searches for some inexplicable reason. But only on the mobile app — it works fine on desktop! If you could do that it would be fine.

The cops aren’t around so they can freely violate the law of gravity.

Copilot, yes. You can find some reasonable alternatives out there but I don't know if I would use the word "great".

GPT-4... not really. Unless you've got serious technical knowledge, serious hardware, and lots of time to experiment you're not going to find anything even remotely close to GPT-4. Probably the best the "average" person can do is run quantized Llama-2 on an M1 (or better) Macbook making use of the unified memory. Lack of GPU VRAM makes running even the "basic" models a challenge. And, for the record, this will still perform substantially worse than GPT-4.

If you're willing to pony up, you can get some hardware on the usual cloud providers but it will not be cheap and it will still require some serious effort since you're basically going to have to fine-tune your own LLM to get anywhere in the same ballpark as GPT-4.

The alt text on that XKCD is even better:

"I recently had someone ask me to go get a computer and turn it on so I could restart it. He refused to move further in the script until I said I had done that."

Definitely AI generated. Look at the bottom-right of the Confederate flag. It’s all messed up, classic generative AI “artifacting” for lack of a better word for it.

Edit: lower down in the thread the original was posted. This was upscaled (very poorly) by AI.