Verqix

Also, in regards to the interest not being factored, if they implement a check the limits for what is being checked could be interest (number of installs or active uses) based. An app doesn't show anything after 1 second? If there are 500.000 users it's probably fine, but if there are 10? It's way less likely to be a false positive, and way less impactful if it is a false positive.

Did you miss the "most" keyword? Also, what is their definition of a "text-only" app? What devices are they using for the "don't install or load" check? When is something called "unresponsive"?

There are so many ways to trigger false positives on any check google introduces. Their way of handling developers who don't understand why they have their app pulled is by giving a blanket "violates the rules" remark.

I imagine SD card reliant apps, apps where a server is down, apps with specific time based information in text on start, apps calculating a lot of data etc. all potential victims.

Unverified to you means "verified by a source that prefers to remain anonymous"?

Have you considered the comment not being serious but highlighting the absurdity of antitrans folks being so incredibly focused on young peoples genitals while decrying others as perverted for wearing clothes that differ from their own?

One of the things you could do is calculate towards understandable numbers. Per tax payer in Britain (32 million) it would cost ~1150 for that first item on the list. Imagine the amount of dinghies you can buy per person for the lot of these. Billion just isn't that magnitude to most people.

On paper all bots act the same? What does that even mean? Adding just a bit of randomness to the code, different hardware and the massive amount of permutations a 3D game offers and I'd like to see you try. First bots were really stupid, but with detection evolving so have the bots and cheats. There is one way to reliably get all of the cheaters: accept a lot of collateral, i.e. non cheaters getting banned.

Shoebox is a nice idea, but now I'm wondering how big the pills would be...

Would expect a lot of models to struggle with making the pope female, making the pope black, or making a black female a pope unless they build in some kind of technique to make replacements. Thing is, a neural net reproduces what you put into it, and I assume the bias is largely towards old white men since those images are way more readily found.

Even targeted prompts, like a zebra with rainbow colored stripes, had very limited results 6 monts ago where there would be at least 50% non black and white stripes. I had to generate multiple times with a lot of negative terms just to get close. Currently, the first generation of copilot matches my idea behind the prompt.

Clearly the step made was a big one, and I imagine tuning was done to ensure models capable of returning more diverse results rather just what is in the data set. It just has more unexpected results and less historically accurate images for these kind of prompts. And some that might be quite painful. Still, being always underrepresented in data sets is also quite painful. Hard to get to a perfect product quickly, but there should be a feature somewhere on their backlog to by default prevent some substitutions. Black, female popes when requesting a generated pope? To me that is a horizon broadening feature. Black, female nazis when requesting nazis? Let that not be a default result.

So? Does that at all invalidate the argument that humans have changed the way, speed and reach of viral infections and viral mutations? It's like saying humans have always gathered in groups. Sure, but modern metropolitan areas come with their own challenges that differ from tribal cultures.

Poultry that has been bred in a way that reduces variety, with more on a certain square footage, with more being transported outside of their natural habitat and migratory range. The problem shouldn't be exaggerated, but human influence shouldn't be ignored.

Bird flu and quick spread of it is likely caused by massive poultry farms, human induced transfer by trade, and transference from contaminated boots combined with travel.

Are we back to the time of not knowing second hand smoke introduces a lot of the same health risks as first hand smoke? Anyone would be able to infer that women that want to get pregnant shouldn't smoke from the proposed headline, but they might think a bit more about their own contributions to the health of others.

Unless people in Africa became more educated, so it feels a bit easy to just disregard them. Also, people often don't change their mind overnight.