> Data used for the charts was researched and compiled by ChatGPT, I spot checked it and found it was accurate enough to for the narrative.
Last I checked, that wasn't how citations worked.
I only sampled one data point (2017 AMD EPYC Rome Clock rate) which was significantly off, because in 2017 it was the Naples chipset that was released, and, unless 2017 was desperate enough to clock from 2.2Ghz to 3Ghz on the regular (Boost up to 3.2Ghz), the 'research' was a fair bit off...
Doesn't undermine or contradict the authors (bots?) point, but a strange way to provide 'evidence' for an argument.
I feel like our planet’s long-term academic health would dramatically improve if something resembling the following statement was posted on the wall of every K-12 and college classroom:
ChatGPT is not a primary source.
Wikipedia is not a primary source.
Google Search is not a primary source.
Microsoft Encarta is not a primary source.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica is not a primary source.
Information aggregators are not primary sources. Identifiable people are primary sources.
I read the whole thing but I got a strong AI vibe about half way through, felt like it was significantly padded with extra words to extend its length. Kind of annoying that blurb wasn’t placed at the beginning of the article…
I've always been on the fence with technical solutions to the 'Pipe wrench' problem but one thing that I don't see mentioned that often is that there are usually many secondary keyrings unlocked by the login password (ssh auth, saved passwords, session cookies maybe, etc);
I could see a solid usecase for a duress script that clears all these and requires 'standard' reauth, so that at least you're back to a 'defence in depth' style.
Also, in the 'Pushover' example, I can't imagine many attackers waiting to plug the thing in before starting the ~pipe wrench~ credentials discussion.
TL:DR "If there are social
factors that systematically drive differences in mental health within pairs of MZ
twins, our findings suggest that education is not among them."
Hey Taylor, Greetings from Belfast, Northern Ireland (Well, not currently, I travel a bit... anyway).
Disappointed that this appears to be US only. would love to use a few of these for monitoring our Hackerspace!
Actually I'm also involved in mobile ad hoc security research so might try and 'acquire' a few of these for testing out some collaborative network theories on our quadcopters... but can't do that as current delivery status stands!
It's not about defining what experience people get, it's that as they are coming into your site, they get the right experience for your content on their device, regardless of whether they were given a desktop link on a mobile device or visa versa.
As demonstrated in the diagram, this is punishing people who strip the tails off incoming links so the link example.org/stories/good-news-everyone gets directed to m.example.org and the user is left with the mobile experience, but the wrong content.
Then we should show up in the Google search results with different urls depending on the device used for the search. There is no 1:1 mapping of site to mobile "pages" with a RIA.
Last I checked, that wasn't how citations worked.
I only sampled one data point (2017 AMD EPYC Rome Clock rate) which was significantly off, because in 2017 it was the Naples chipset that was released, and, unless 2017 was desperate enough to clock from 2.2Ghz to 3Ghz on the regular (Boost up to 3.2Ghz), the 'research' was a fair bit off...
Doesn't undermine or contradict the authors (bots?) point, but a strange way to provide 'evidence' for an argument.