Though it is short on specifics. Were they allowed to swap batteries part way through the race? I also heard that the winning robot may have fallen near the end and required assistance in standing back up.

This 👏 Is 👏 News
Last year, the fastest bipedal robot took 2 hours and 40 minutes to finish a half marathon. This year the fastest took 50 minutes.

And keep up the original post?

I'm sure it was a "mistake". Most of the pictures and videos you post are AI generated. I'm sure those are all mistakes as well.

Probably best not to admit fault at all when speaking to the cops.

She's in the body cam footage with a blurred face
"Yeah, he lives right there, and he would be watering their flowers. This is probably my fault"
Pastor Jennings "doesn't hold any ill will towards the woman who called police"
"She was only doing what {I} was doing, looking out for a neighbor's home"

She is in the body cam footage
"Yeah, he lives right there, and he would be watering their flowers. This is probably my fault"
Pastor Jennings "doesn't hold any ill will towards the woman who called police"

I hate AI use in the arts, but AI has helped me code some tools that make my job less stressful, thus increasing my quality of life.
I don't use AI to directly analyze data, or to write or summarize emails, or anything like that. I use it to help make deterministic tools.

The photo has not been cropped, but it was taken with a long lens (400mm). The photo resolution matches the advertised resolution of the camera.

It's a pan of a real photo, but not from Artemis.

Probably just a video compression artifact. I don't think the video is AI. It's just a pan of an older photo of the moon.

It's a real photo of the Moon, it just isn't from Artemis. It matches Google Maps map of the Moon: www.google.com/maps/space/m...

I did a quick skim of Portnoy's feed. His content is largely apolitical.
RT doesn't map neatly onto the US left-right spectrum. Lincoln Project and Republicans against Trump content is about 99% the "against Trump" part and 1% is the "Republican" part.

He's an unrepentant Trump voter, but skimming through his Tweets (using xcancel), I couldn't find any that were political.

I quickly skimmed his Twitter account, and almost all of his posts are apolitical. So while he may occasionally say something political, his account doesn't look to be a huge contributor to the political discourse on the platform.

To be fair, 98% of their Twitter posts are the ”against Trump" part. There is very little of the "Republicans" part reflected in their content.

From a quick skim of their account, 98%+ of their posts are anti-Trump / anti-MAGA.
A much larger percentage of Democrats than Republicans would agree with the vast majority of their posts.

The people running the account may be right leaning, but the posts on the account are pretty much 100% anti Trump/MAGA. That alone doesn't mean they are left leaning, but I'd guess overwhelmingly more Democrats share their posts than Republicans.

I'd like to see a raw photo, assuming there is one. The EXIF says it was processed in Lightroom, and there was obviously quite heavy color noise reduction applied.

If I take a photo of clouds on a sunny day with a DSLR, I'll set the camera and lens to something like 1/3200s F4 at ISO 100.
This Earth photo was taken at 1/4s F4 at ISO 51200.
That increases the recorded brightness by a factor of 409,600.

Probably best not to share a color-enhanced image to counter claims about a faked photo.

And they used quite heavy color noise reduction. The raw photo would have much more colorful noise. I wonder if they got the JPEG from the camera, or if they got a raw file and processed and converted it to a JPEG on Earth.

In a way, this Earth photo is somewhat altered. They used heavy color noise reduction. You can tell because the noise is monochromatic. In a raw image with as little processing as possible, the noise in the image would be a lot more colorful.

Unlike human eyes, which are less sensitive to color in the dark, digital camera sensors are equally sensitive to color in dark settings as in bright settings. That's why Aurora photos look more colorful in a photo than to the naked eye.

That is not what Section 230 says. It says that just because they make some moderation decisions, that doesn't make them liable for content their users post.

I drive a (not Tesla) electric car. Does that mean I'm siding with the Musks of the world?

Assassin's Creed Shadows?

I'm guessing Assassin something or other

"These assets helped us rapidly explore tone and atmosphere in the earlier phases of production."

Bright and obvious textures go against their stated purpose for the AI slop.

But they could have at least put a subtle "do not use" watermark on it for plausible deniability.

But why not just say that? What does it have to do with purple blocks?
I get how magenta blocks may be a good use for programmer art, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that for some prototyping purposes they may want something representative of the final look they are going for. Not defending AI use.