nef

Sure, but by your definition any thought containing any kind of language would not be "original" because it requires familiarity with the language.

it includes absolutely nothing that's already familiar to you

I truly do not believe that any thought exists without context, if you can find any examples I would be happy to be proven wrong.

By that definition no human has ever had an "original" thought.

Maybe for certain AI workloads, absolutely not for any games. Their drivers are already very well optimised, and the raster performance barely changed this generation.

If you still think Depp didn't abuse Heard then clearly no amount of evidence is enough for you.

You can specifically target crawlers that ignore robots.txt, which will catch practically every LLM scraper.

It's actually impossible to detect someone doing this without storing passwords in plaintext, which is incredibly insecure.

This looks mostly right. The precision slider is ~~definitely~~ probably only for the output, not calculations. The (up | 5/4 | down) is (always round up | round 5+ up and 4- down | always round down)

What I'd like to know is how the A and F settings are different.

This is nothing like GregTech! Where's the tedious microcrafting to enjoy before every search?

At what point did I move the goalposts? I never denied that the recordings existed. I simply fail to see how someone at Apple would decide that selling private conversations is worth the insane risk.

Do you have any proof they sold that data? I'd love to know why the plaintiffs settled out of court if they thought they could prove Apple is feeding every voice recording into their ads. They had to pay 5x as much just for slowing down old iPhones, actively selling voice recordings would undoubtedly be worth far more than that.

The issue is that contractors had access to the recordings, which is certainly a breach of privacy, but not a grand conspiracy to target ads.

That Siri was bugged in a way that activated it unintentionally, which then sends recordings to Apple, is not in dispute. Turning that into "they're always recording your conversations" is a big leap. Why would the whistleblower that revealed the recordings being misused not bother mentioning that?