Just installed Owncast, so townsfolk can ride my G-scale Polar Express via an onboard livestream, as part of a revamped lighting and projection mapping festive season show.

While I was at it I also added Kokoro for TTS.

Thought I would spice up Jellyfin for the festive season, so am trying out the Jellyfin Enhanced and Home Sections plugins.

Not only did I read the article, what you have quoted further confirms the misleading title, the source is anonymous and there is an interpretation of intent, not direct or open admission.

Could the CCP be responsible, absolutely, is there clear evidence of admission, rather than international diplomatic posturing, not at all.

If you believe there is a clear factual open admission and ownership of guilt by the CCP then please point me to it.

Some leaders are not so subtle in international interactions when making threats, even in the full glare of public media.

The title is misleading, rather ‘Two anonymous observers in secret Biden talks claim Volt Typhoon has been responsible for intrusions into vital critical infrastructure’.

Click bait headlines and journalism are as much a threat to democracy and independent critical thought as the CCP.

Perhaps I am incredibly naive, but for me a “Forever mouse” is something you buy, own, and have control absolute over!

And there is angst re AI hallucinating, seems that also affects HR.

Any public data exchange has an element of risk, but the management/priority of that risk relates to your relevant risk matrix/profile.

Any exposed data transverses via a provider, be it mobile or Wi-Fi is pertinent, iIf you are concerned about provider vulnerabilities and exposure, be it Wi-Fi or mobile, use a VPN and related encryption.

It will get worse with AI joining the fray!

I will repeat what I have proffered before:

If OpenAI stated that it is impossible to train leading AI models without using copyrighted material, then, unpopular as it may be, the preemptive pragmatic solution should be pretty obvious, enter into commercial arrangements for access to said copyrighted material.

Claiming a failure to do so in circumstances where the subsequent commercial product directly competes in a market seems disingenuous at best, given what I assume is the purpose of copyrighted material, that being to set the terms under which public facing material can be used. Particularly if regurgitation of copyrighted material seems to exist in products inadequately developed to prevent such a simple and foreseeable situation.

Yes I am aware of the USA concept of fair use, but the test of that should be manifestly reciprocal, for example would Meta allow what it did to MySpace, hack and allow easy user transfer, or Google with scraping Youtube.

To me it seems Big Tech wants its cake and to eat it, where investor $$$ are used to corrupt open markets and undermine both fundamental democratic State social institutions, manipulate legal processes, and undermine basic consumer rights.

Monopolistic gatekeepers pretending to be otherwise…that the rest of the world does not have equal rigor, and the EU itself at times quivering when it comes to regulating big tech, should be of concern.