To me it looks like they used a bad camera that’s too soft. That’s all. AI images are often sharper and better looking than this if done using a good enough model and techniques.

There are actual cats that look like this, so probably it’s real. It certainly doesn’t seem AI generated to me.

GPTs also don’t make images. That’s not what Transformers do, and GPT means Generative Pre-trained Transformer. It’s diffusion models and variational autoencoders that make images.

I don’t think this is AI generated spam. There is apparently a real breed of cat that looks like this. I think you need to be less paranoid, this is lemmy.

You can do. If you don’t that’s when you get the fire, or more likely a whole bunch of breakers flip and you are in a black start situation.

Reminds me of that one cop show from the BBC that covers an internal affairs and anti-corruption team. It’s called Line of Duty.

First comment I have seen here that’s even half intelligent. Most people seem to be confusing leftists with Democrats.

Biden is not even close to far left.

Yes, this is quite true.

Although we should spare a thought to the leftists doing this for political reasons who are also weirdos. Looking at hexbear, lemmygrad, and lemmy.ml in particular.

I’ve tried making this argument before and people never seem to agree. I think Google claims their Kubernetes is actually more secure than traditional VMs, but how true that really is I have no idea. Unfortunately though there are already things we depend upon for security that are probably less secure than most container platforms, like ordinary unix permissions or technologies like AppArmour and SELinux.

Nuclear actually releases less CO2 than renewables, because renewables aren’t nearly as clean as you think they are. Those solar panels and wind turbines have to be made somehow. The things needed to make solar panels and batteries aren’t exactly great for the planet to mine and manufacture.

This concept of 100% clean energy is a myth, there are just more and less polluting sources. Nuclear being the least polluting, with fossil fuels being the worst, and renewables in the middle.

I know manufacturing panels and batteries have a significant environmental cost. Being a net negative though I am not sure about. Could you link some sources?

How many of those incidents killed anyone? It’s the same with aviation, lots of incidents but few are actually fatal. We still fly everyday.

You can argue all you want but unless you have something that’s actually significantly safer then what are you going to do?

Yes it can. Pretending it’s that dangerous in doses normally consumed by humans in say coffee would be silly though and that’s exactly what you are doing. Like you could make a dirty bomb from spent fuel rods, but that’s irresponsible. You could build outdated and unsafe reactors, but again that’s irresponsible. You could also burn people to death using the power of the sun and some mirrors. Do you get my point?

That’s actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn’t put nuclear reactors in Germany.

You can’t call nuclear dangerous when it’s literally safer than many other energy sources. It’s like calling Caffeine dangerous when meth exists.

Wait are you saying that renewables have too much environmental cost to make?

You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can’t build reactors in high population density areas.

Which cities? I haven’t heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages.

Since when? There are dams all over the place.

While I think most of this is true, I do doubt your claim that Chernobyl didn’t cause birth defects. Even if it didn’t cause defects in humans because they were evacuated, it still caused birth defects in animals that stayed behind. I mean the thing killed a forest. It’s easier to cause mutations than outright kill something - this is especially true in the newly conceived.