It kind of does, even if mistakenly. People use "schizo" as a derogatory way to refer to schizophrenic and "schizoid" isn't a commonly used term; I have seen people use it this way.
Ultima Online invented a significant amount of technology we use today. The technical term "sharding" literally comes from the intro video in the game where they explain why there are multiple copies of the same world.
I think they were invented by Apollo Computer as part of their NCS (Network Computing System). From there, they were adopted by the OSF (later Open Group) DCE RPC system, and from there, by Microsoft (who renamed them GUIDs).
Anything you're not testing regresses, and any driver you let out of jail is going to regress too.
Properly engineered security fixes don't cause performance regressions, either because you find improvements to pay for them, or you get the hardware updated to make them cheaper. (That'd be PCID in this case.)
How is an example of a child death from it, "manipulative"? Are you not supposed to be moved by an example of a human death to a poison marketed as a drug?
GPL doesn’t restrict you from using it as input to a model. It’s just that as the model is a derivative work, it also has to be released under the GPL.
I know this is the main question, but is it a derivative work? Does all the code I write need to be under the GPL because I once read some GPL code and learned from it?
Or does copilot not work like other ML projects and actually copies sections of code?
Spam is by definition messages that the recipient does not want to receive. Given what happened in Myanmar it looks like these people did want to receive those messages - but some organisations like "Amnesty International" didn't want those users to receive those messages. That is not a spam issue, that is a censorship issue.
Spam is by definition messages that the recipient does not want to receive.
Whether or not the recipient wants an email is an orthogonal concern to whether Google promotes it. When Google places email in someone's Inbox, as opposed to Spam, Google is promoting that email.
That is not a spam issue, that is a censorship issue.
Alright, it's a censorship issue. Censorship on one side; genocide on the other. Ideology or pragmatism.
> Alright, it's a censorship issue. Censorship on one side; genocide on the other. Ideology or pragmatism.
Should we abandon honesty and accuracy if one side of an issue is genocide? Let me rephrase that: should I assume anyone speaking out against genocide is twisting words to their breaking point, and I shouldn't believe a word they're saying? Do you see the problem with this approach?
I find it incredibly dishonest to use spam-filters as a cheap trap that every non-spam message is "promoted", so that any usable messaging platform can be accused of "promoting" messages someone wants censored.
I propose the following: since opinion is split on this issue, using the (apparently incredibly broad) "promoting" will mislead a large segment of readers. And even those that won't be misled won't be any wiser, since to them, not having messages dropped as spam and algorithmically boosting a story so 90% of all Facebook users see it are both "promotion".
So instead of saying "promotion", say "treated the same as any other non-spam message". Unless you were in fact trying to mislead your readers, you would welcome this chance to be more accurate and descriptive.
Google does not send emails to spam just because it doesn't like the politics of what is being said in the email, so no, it's not the same thing.
Also when Google sends something to spam you can still read it. What "Amnesty International" is asking for here is making it impossible for people to read what some people say.
