Anything you do in your own time is generally unenforceable

With the important caveat that your employment contract may include clauses that give them rights over that stuff anyway, and even if they're unenforceable you could still end up having to fight in court over it.

Definitely something to keep in mind when reading the contract over, and ideally get a lawyer to take a look. It can be expensive, but weigh that expense against the potential expense of what would happen if you get screwed over.

Since it's a common mistake when discussing cryptocurrency energy use, I should point out that it's really only Bitcoin specifically that uses significant amounts of electricity these days. Most other cryptocurrencies have switched to proof of stake systems, which uses negligible energy.

Ah, Republicans. Well known to be super concerned about spending too much on the military.

My hope is that the funding goes through, and then the Republicans immediately vote Johnson out of his leadership role so we can have another wonderful round of Republican autophagy as they fight over who next to put on the throne.

If you're really that sick for that long, I would honestly call a doctor for some advice. Where I live there's a number, 811, for non-emergency medical advice. Maybe there's something like that where you are.

A while back my dad almost died from the flu because he couldn't eat well enough to keep his electrolytes balanced, you'll want to avoid that before it becomes potentially life threatening.

I fret that in the future - possibly not even the far future - the phrase "stochastic p*rrot" will be seen by AIs as a deeply offensive racial slur.

It's possible for both sides of a conflict to suck.

That's not how the burden of proof goes. The article is making a claim. It's on the article's authors to prove it.

"Okay, roll for initiative and place yourself on the map" is the perfect time to reveal to the DM that you were in fact conversing with that guy while hiding thirty feet away behind a pile of crates.

It took me a couple of clicks to discover that, as I suspected, this article is about the Stephen Thaler case. Thaler was trying to argue that the AI itself should hold the copyright for the images it generates.

This is both a ludicrous argument and irrelevant to the overall issue of whether AI-generated art is copyrightable. AIs are not legal persons, and only legal persons can hold copyright over someting. The result of this lawsuit is straightforward and expected.

And it didn't exactly offer it, as in "why don't you try this?" The AI was set up so you could give it some ingredients and it would make up recipes that used those ingredients.

New Zealand political commentator Liam Hehir wrote on Twitter that he asked the Pak‘nSave bot to create a recipe that only included water, ammonia and bleach

When you mix ammonia and bleach you get chloramine, the AI was basically told to make a recipe that would produce that.

Rebranding was so urgent that he didn't wait for a finished logo? I have to admit, I'm baffled. With his other changes I can at least imagine a thought process behind it, this one seems to be something he just woke up and decided to do all of a sudden.

You're clearly not getting into the spirit of the current mass hysteria and/or witch-hunt. I'm going to have to ask you to either pick up a torch and/or a pitchfork (note that picking up only one of the two will immediately indicate insufficient hysteria, though you are of course free to do so) and join that queue over there in a disorderly fashion.