Don't rely too much on ChatGPT here. It's not a human and isn't going to respond the same way a human would.
If you over practice with that tool you might become great at debating ChatGPT but that may entrench bad habits that hurt you when debating a human.
I think this is the strongest protection against this attack. You'd need to identify enough people at enough varied polling locations to be significant enough to sway an election.
Do too many at one location and it raises flags. Cast a vote with a name that also votes absentee or at another location, raises flags.
You'd have to distribute enough fake votes over a large enough area and across enough different shifts to not get anyone's attention. And that's expensive and hard to keep secret due to how many people would be involved.
A lot of food safety laws are built around the highest levels of safety because you never know how vulnerable one of your patrons might be. I have no idea about the actual health impacts but based on that I assume it's another minor vector for foodbourne illness that alone has a really small impact.
I'm more worried about what it means about the rest of the kitchen's cleanliness. Hairnets/hats are easy, so if they can't do that then what else are they forgetting?
Most of the ones on Amazon aren't trustworthy. Especially at high capacities. But apparently you can get up to 2TB now, at least in theory. I imagine the support for them is pretty limited though still.
I'm not sure on the rules/general use but my ear agrees with this. As soon as you put an "and" between them nearly any order seems totally normal.
Check a sample ballot so you know what races are up for a vote. Don't let the first time you see a candidate be at the voting location.
My government publishes a booklet of candidate statements and details of ballot measures that gets sent out to all voters. Candidates can lie in their statements so don't trust the ones who sound agreeable, but I can usually rule out more than a few based on them strongly supporting issues I'm against. This lets me rule out the worst choices for me and focus my research on a smaller set of candidates/races where the choice isn't as obvious. Check candidate websites for a similar statement. Focus on ruling out people you strongly disagree with. Bookmark the ones that need more digging.
Then I tend to check voter guides published by news organizations and charities with a similar lean as me. I don't follow them directly, but they give me a sense of who people with similar leanings support. This has helped me discover some candidates who were directly misleading in their statements and didn't have the support of the people they claim agree with them. If any names in the voting guide surprise you, dig deeper on them.
Party affiliation is unfortunately meaningful in federal elections, and many top level state elections as well, but avoid voting straight ticket based on party. There are often local elections where party affiliation isn't as important. It may matter if my governer is Red or Blue ,but it probably matters less what my Coroner is (...I'll admit though that my feelings on this are changing in recent years. I'm still against straight ticket voting because it's important to check each race individually.) Try to find a basic 2 sentence or so description of each position that's up for election so you know what kind of power that position has. That will help you judge if a candidate's stances on certain issues matter for their position. It's great that my Coroner supports X but that's irrelevant to their job so I won't factor it in.
Finally I make sure to read the long form of every ballot measure or amendment. The short version almost always sounds appealing but often the long form uncovers really important nuances. Never just vote based on the short form, it's way too easy to sneak in really terrible policies by constructing an agreeable tagline.
Outside of the thought experiment, banning books is different than choosing to not preserve them or keep them in a collection.
Removing a book that would otherwise fit the criteria of preservation just because it covers a "politicized" topic is different than a book becoming low value, getting superseded by newer editions, or no longer being worth preserving by that particular institution.
If we're just talking archival and my goal isn't to increase access and availability to those books, then I'd also consider the availability of the book generally outside of my collection. My institution may not personally need to preserve some major holy books, new popular novels, classics, books still in print, because other institutions, people, and culture overall are doing that preservation work for us. I would focus instead on things that are more at risk (e.g.less popular but still important.)
With a watchful eye of course to notice when a book is losing popularity and needs an additional hand to preserve properly.
I'm not a librarian though and defer to them as experts here. They're much better at this than anyone else.
I think it might depend on if the person mooning is moving toward the victim and if the victim is "in range" of...the butt.
If someone was backing that (bare) ass up on me I'd definitely feel threatened, or if they moon me so close that they might spray me.
The alternative isn't controlling how people use chatbots on their own machines. It's limiting corporations from profiting off of chatbots that use another person's likeness.
You don't need to jump to assuming regulations would have to control what you do on your computer specifically.
If you're memorizing your password, don't change it too often because it'll just confuse you and encourage you to pick easy to remember passwords which are less secure. Change your password if you hear about a hack, or have reason to suspect your password got leaked. Otherwise there's no need.
If you have a password manager though, go off. Change it as often as you'd like.
(Also 2FA, unique passwords per site, etc etc etc)
Medium