looks like its just setting some events, these two lines should clear the anti-select and the anti-right click respectively if pasted into the debug console:
document.body.onselectstart = undefined
document.oncontextmenu = undefined
For the sake of roleplay and being friends, the idea of disabled people in fantasy settings should not be difficult to accept, but that doesn't mean that all fantasy IPs should have all sorts of modern disabilities. Like in a ttrpg you are creating a collaborative story using the ttrpg systems and in that sense heck yeah you can have magic chairs to transport otherwise disabled people. BG3 straight up cures blindness by use of a magical prosthetic eye, so there is even precedent for it in the popular dnd video game.
But what I totally want is some more creative and magical ways to handle disabilities, or maybe just whimsical. What about a druid that wildshapes into a snake to move around, and just slithers on the ground. straight up never uses a wheelchair cuz snek. Or magical leg armor. Prosthetic eyes? why not just have a large crystal ball that balances on your head that does the seeing for you.
Just remember that Orson Scott Card is a massive homophobe!
Good books though.
Actually, space in general is mostly 2 dimensional, in that all the interesting stuff generally takes place on some sort of almost flat plane. A star system is generally on a plane, so is the galactic system, and for most planet+moons too. They just tend to be different planes so for ease of communication you will probably just align your idea of down with whatever the most convenient plane is. This of course is ignoring what gravity down is, as that changes as thrust does.
And as for ship alignment, yeah no one is going to worry about that till its time to dock, at which point the lighter vessel will likely change their orientation since its easier and takes less energy. Spaceships are not going to be within human sight range of each other most of the time, even being in relatively the same are. Space too big and getting ships close to each other is dangerous!
But in media that fucks with people's idea of meeting and seeing each other so for convenience of not confusing the audience you don't see that level of realism often.
In more realistic scenarios, "down" is just defined by the direction of thrust. So approaching a ship, they will be down assuming you are decelerating to match their velocity, but they will be up if you are still thrusting towards them.
But all of that has almost nothing to do with how people will think of orientation to other ships since generally speaking you won't be using eye sight to communicate ship to ship. At that point an agreed upon down will be needed. Probably aligned with galactic or star system to establish a plane, and probably right hand rule to establish up and down. In general given that space is big and ships are small they will just be points on each others radar until they need to dock with each other so it doesn't really matter how people are actually oriented, as long as when they communicate what they say makes sense to the other side.
edit: or maybe down is towards the currently orbitted gravity well, like towards a planet/moon/star.
The fuck? Abusing? They are homeless and just trying to survive and doing the best they can. They are making good use of their resources to embetter their own lives and the system allows for it. If homeless people go to the library perhaps the problem is not the homeless people but that THERE IS NO BETTER OPTION FOR THEM.
Idk about anyone else but its a bit long. Up to q10 i took it seriously and actually looked for ai gen artifacts (and got all of them up to 10 correct) and then I just sorta winged it and guessed and got like 50% of them right. OP if you are going to use this data anywhere I would first recommend getting all of your sources together as some of those did not have a good source, but also maybe watch out for people doing what I did and getting tired of the task and just wanting to see how well i did on the part i tried. I got like 15/20
For anyone wanting to get good at seeing the tells, focus on discontinuities across edges: the number or intensity of wrinkles across the edge of eyeglasses, the positioning of a railing behind a subject (especially if there is a corner hidden from view, you can imagine where it is, the image gen cannot). Another tell is looking for a noisy mess where you expect noisy but organized: cross-hatching trips it up especially in boundary cases where two hatches meet, when two trees or other organic looking things meet together, or other lines that have a very specific way of resolving when meeting. Finally look for real life objects that are slightly out of proportion, these things are trained on drawn images, and photos, and everything else and thus cross those influences a lot more than a human artist might. The eyes on the lego figures gave it away though that one also exhibits the discontinuity across edges with the woman's scarf.
15 mph is plenty fast enough to belong in the bike lane. You're good bro.
Thats how its supposed to work and in practice it kinda does, but the people with the money want positive results and the people doing the work have to do what they can to stay alive and relevant enough to actually do the work. Which means that while most scientists are willing to change their minds about something once they have sufficient evidence, gathering that evidence can be difficult when no one is willing to pay for it. Hard to change minds when you can't get the evidence to show some preconceived notion was wrong.
I guess I just don't really know what feature-rich means in this context but being proprietary, not fully cross platform, and banned on most private trackers seems like huge downsides for power users compared to customization, built in search, and integrated chat.
I get this chart probably not made for people like me in mind though.
Yeah, seems weird that simple "it downloads torrents" client gets a D. It gets the job done, is easy to figure out, and doesnt fuck about with features I would never touch. Maybe thats not enough for a power user but for me its exactly what I want.
(but then why is Tixati in B, seems to have mostly downsides?)
Also known as PTFE, it is a plastic substance that has an insanely low coefficient of friction and is thus incredibly fucking useful for so many things. And much like the last weirdly good at doing everything substance (asbestos) it turns out it really should not have been put in everything, but its probably not quite as bad as asbestos.
Wdym? Pregnancy is the original lootbox, never know what kind of kids you're gonna get.
A fucking non issue, literally anything and everything ad driven requires this shit and its outside of developer control unless they dont want ads. We had this dumb fucking "controversy" with Sync too and apparently you didn't pay attention. That's fine, but stop thinking that everyone is out to get you and that you need to make a reactionary post before at least taking a second to google what the fuck you are posting even means.
fuck
Outside of the costs of hardware, its just power. Running these sorts of computations is getting more efficient, but the sheer amount of computation means that its gonna take a lot of electricity to run.
they know it's impossible to do
There is some research into ML data deletion and its shown to be possible, but maybe not on larger scales and maybe not something that is actually feasible compared to retraining.
While you are overall correct, there is still a sort of "black box" effect going on. While we understand the mechanics of how the network architecture works the actual information encoded by training is, as you have said, not stored in a way that is easily accessible or editable by a human.
I am not sure if this is what OP meant by it, but it kinda fits and I wanted to add a bit of clarification. Relatedly, the easiest way to uncook (or unscramble) an egg is to feed it to a chicken, which amounts to basically retraining a model.