Looks like the same guys were doing publicity around 2019 https://www.abc.net.au/...
At the time, they claimed the cost to make a single hamburger was $30-$40, and now 4 years later, they claim to have gotten it down to $5-$6 per patty.
The article claims the first demonstration of a lab-grown hamburger was in 2013.

So 6 years from proof of concept to (probably) first capital raise, then 4 years to start regulatory approval, 1 year for approval to take place (target is March next year).

How many people will read the title without the comments and leave with the wrong idea?

Not that I think you should take the post down, but the title is quite definitive, and confirms existing biases, so people are unlikely to research further.

Another reason to block an instance is language. For example, https://feddit.de is a non-English language instance, I'll never interact with anything from there.

Though, perhaps that's a separate issue. Maybe users should be able to set their language(s) and content can be blocked if it's not in your language(s).

Probably best to do it hierarchically, where instances have a default language, magazines can override the default instance language, and posts can overwrite the default magazine language.

Mirroring the comments on Ars: Why should AI child porn be illegal? Clearly the demand is there, and if you cut off the safe supply, don't you just drive consumers to sources which involve the actual abuse of minors?

Another comment I saw was fretting that AI was being fed CSAM, and that's why it can generate those images. That's not true. Current image generating algorithms can easily generate out of distribution images.

Finally, how does the law deal with sharing seed+prompt (the input to the ai) instead of the images themselves? Especially as such a combination may produce child porn in only 1 model out of thousands.

It would literally be a non-issue if it were simply an advisory body as has been done in the past. The issue is that the supporters want to alter the constitution.

The systematic oppression of indigenous Australians started around 1869 with the introduction of the "Aborigines Protection Act", and indigenous Australians were only ceded the right to vote in 1962. So, it's no surprise that we have issues currently, as people alive today were directly or indirectly affected by those policies (and others).

In a thousand years time (hopefully a hundred years, if we're lucky), these issues will no longer be present. But the constitution will still exist, and hopefully exist far into the future. So, why add wording to a long-lived document for problems which are so short-term? Especially when altering the constitution is not necessary to effect change?

I wonder what specifically they're interested in vs long deployments in Antarctica (people do 12 months rotations in some stations there).

I found this article discussing the psychology of placements in Australian antarctic stations: https://psychology.org.au/....

The differences as I see them are:

1. Smaller crew
2. No unsuited outdoor time
3. Smaller space
4. Communication latency / outages
5. Personal belongings weight/volume limits
6. Dietary restrictions

I had to go find the thread being referenced, it's here for anyone else who hasn't seen it: https://kbin.social/...

I took the time to post my own thoughts in the thread, which I've reproduced here:

It seems a lot of people have very strong negative reactions to anything which is too close to children in pornography. I don't think that's an especially bad thing, but in my mind the only reason to be against minors in pornography is to protect those same minors from harm.

As an analogy, I find scat porn disgusting. But that doesn't mean it should be banned, as long as all parties are able to consent and no harm is done.

When it comes to non-child-coded drawings (though with childish proportions), I don't see the harm or lack of consent. And if that is the case, it doesn't matter what my personal feelings are about the content, it shouldn't be banned.

DALL-E was the first development which shocked me. AlphaGo was very impressive on a technical level, and much earlier than anticipated, but it didn't feel different.
GANs existed, but they never seemed to have the creativity, nor understanding of prompts, which was demonstrated by DALL-E. Of all things, the image of an avocado-themed chair is still baked into my mind. I remember being gobsmacked by the imagery, and when I'd recovered from that, just how "simple" the step from what we had before to DALL-E was.
The other thing which surprised me was the step from image diffusion models to 3D and video. We certainly haven't gotten anywhere near the quality in those domains yet, but they felt so far from the image domain that we'd need some major revolution in the way we approached the problem. The thing which surprised me the most was just how fast the transition from images to video happened.

Soul Reaver.

The game has a strong atmosphere, with an interesting gameplay mechanic where you can move between the underworld and the overworld. In the underworld, the geometry of everything twists and warps and different enemies spawn, which adds another dimension to the puzzle elements of the game.

The world building, atmosphere, voice acting, music, puzzles, and combat are all great for the time.

There's an upscaled version of the opening cinematic here to get a feel for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkkmm9vqbHQ

I think that, on the face of it, anthropomorphized elements are too similar to anthropomorphized emotions. So, not only does it look like a rehash of an existing idea, but the premise itself is less interesting than the original.

I almost put The Fifth Season down after the first chapter, I remember thinking: "This author has a chip on their shoulder". I'm glad I persevered though, and I definitely recommend the series to people as it is quite different. I'd suggest giving it another shot.

In the last 12 months, 3M's profits were $14.4B (source), so this fine represents 8.5 months of profits.

How large should the fine have been?

This is an essay about the Barbie brand and its relationship to feminism and capitalism through history and the modern day. The Barbie movie is discussed but it's not the primary focus.

I've seen this sentiment before, but what evidence is there that the current system isn't working?

For example, this chart shows remarkable improvement for Indigenous Australian infant mortality (source).

What metrics are you looking at which are not trending in a favourable way for indigenous Australians?

And, as indigenous Australians were only given the right to vote in 1962, how quickly do you expect parity with non-indigenous Australians to happen?

From Wikipedia: this is only a 1-sigma result compared to theory using lattice calculations. It would have been 5.1-sigma if the calculation method had not been improved.
Many calculations in the standard model are mathematically intractable with current methods, so improving approximate solutions is not trivial and not surprising that we've found improvements.

Various ideas, maybe mix and match.

1. Increasing censorship and fragmentation. Other countries follow in China's footsteps and the internet of the future looks more like islands than a global web.
2. Augmented Reality: similar to how your phone without the internet is increasingly becoming abnormal, so to does experiencing the world without augmentation become an uncommon and alien thing. The internet becomes stereoscopic and omnipresent.
3. Companion Robots: Now you can touch the internet. Not only do you have your ideal sexual companion, but also a friend and a slave and a savant. For the first time, humans no longer have any advantage over technology. The value of human companionship declines, and birth rates plummet. You rarely browse internet forums anymore, you talk with your companion, who interacts on your behalf and presents a social interface for you.
4. Neural Link: the is no longer anything meditating your connection to the internet/technology. The internet is as much a part of you as your hand
5. Artificial intelligence becomes so good that it replaces everything in the internet. You no longer talk to people, you talk to stimulated people. You no longer choose a movie to watch, you describe what you want to see and it's generated live
6. AI becomes so powerful that there is no need to work. Your neural implants are so stimulating there is no need to move. You have no purpose and no ability to avoid succumbing to the reward signals evolution has hardwired into your brain

This looks amazing, if true. The paper is claiming state of the art across literally every metric. Even in their ablation study the model outperforms all others.

I'm a bit suspicious that they don't extend their perplexity numbers to the 13B model, or provide the hyper parameters, but they reference it in text and in their scaling table.

Code will be released in a week https://github.com/...

I would argue that, yes, the person could behave immorally. Actions which harm the person, without benefit, are immoral.

Morality for the person is based on the metric by which the person measures happiness/fulfillment/success.
All actions which do not affect that metric are amoral.
Actions which improve the metric are moral.
Actions which reduce the metric are immoral.

Specific answers:

.1. Yes
2. No
3.
a) No
b) Only if it causes psychological harm
4.
a) No
b) Yes
c) Depends if more self-actualization/fulfillment is gained than the suffering, as judged by the person
d) No
5. Yes
6. Perfect questions, wouldn't change a thing

This appears to be a reformulation of the mathematical universe hypothesis. Do you draw a distinction between what you describe and that work?

NGC 1277 is unusual among galaxies because it has had little interaction with other surrounding galaxies.

I wonder if interactions between galaxies somehow converts regular matter to dark matter.