ClamDrinker

Avatar really is a case study in mismanagement. At it's core an engaging story with deep characters and lore with many parts unexplored, with a special place in many hearts after the initial series. The perfect ingredients to turn into a lifelong franchise. Yet it cannot seem to shed the curse of rights holders and suits smothering it's potential success.

People view the image in different conditions. There's so many factors involved. How bright your surroundings are, the make and size of your display device, how you perceive colors. Professionals perform color grading to avoid ambiguity like this in movies and such. Even your cultural expectations are hypothesized to change how you perceive the dress. (Eg. living in a desert environment can make you expect more yellow shading)

There's a similar illusion called the spinning dancer, where some people simply cannot see the image spinning one way or the other, while some can even switch between them. There's more information in the dress to make an objective assessment, but if that information isn't observed or obscured by the aforementioned reasons, it's totally understandable. That's what OP's image is showing.

That seems like a normal restart initiated by using the start menu. The error code 0x80000000 does stand out, since on my personal Windows 10 install a normal restart gives a code of 0x0 (Indicating success). The "Other reason (Planned)" is normal though, it's simply the default reason for the shutdown command. The error code 0x80000000 isn't actually a specific error code that says anything, it's basically the 'empty' error code (Since error codes from windows system calls range from 0x80000000–0xFFFFFFFF). I think it might simply mean the restart was cancelled, which you would know if you did, or maybe if the restart failed for an unknown reason.

Did you confirm the message occurred roughly around the time the unexpected restart occurs? If the timing doesn't align, it might just be a complete red herring.

But if it aligns, something is somehow using your file explorer or task bar (which is what explorer.exe is) to initiate the restart, which would be unexpected since most often it would just directly shut down the computer by issuing the command for a restart directly (And you would see the process that initiated it instead of explorer.exe)

You might be looking at something that injects itself into the windows explorer, or something that directly uses keystrokes or mouse inputs to control the start menu (But you might be able to see that if so). Not necessarily nefarious but you should be on guard anyways. Maybe hotkey or macro software, or software you installed that works through the right click menu in the file explorer, or anything that adds itself on top of the default windows explorer like toolbars or plugins. A virus or such would be possible too, although one would wonder why it would just restart the PC and not actually do anything in secret. In cases where it's not a virus, there would likely be a pattern to where you perform a specific action and the restart occurs.

I would probably run down a classic troubleshooting checklist like remembering if you installed anything recently that aligns with the issue starting to occur, checking if there's any unknown applications starting with windows (You can check this in your Task Manager -> Startup), and running antivirus more aggressively (Such as scanning the entire disk). And if you can, ask around on forums where people much more familiar with this stuff hang out (Like here) or involve someone with more knowledge that can physically access the PC like a local computer repair shop or a tech-savvy friend.

But if you understood what they were trying to say as you said you did, you would understand they're not claiming that is de facto what NK is. They're just saying what NK is on paper. Even sham governments frequently live in the shadow of legitimacy cast by what their system does on paper and still follow protocol even if parameters are tightly controlled for a certain outcome. So a lot of this could have been avoided by not fighting that premise and reiterating your point differently. Such as with Xi, you did not mean to deny he wasn't elected by the NPC instead of the people, but you wanted to deny the legitimacy of the entire process including the NPC. So say that instead of denying the former. "Even if he's indirectly elected, the process as a whole is a sham." or "You're right, he is indirectly elected. But that doesn't change my point, the legitimacy of that election is also a sham.", and none of this would have been necessary.

You say that, but you also claimed out of nowhere that they said NK holds fair elections. Which they clearly didn't. So if you aren't misunderstanding what they're trying to tell you - why are you putting words into their mouth and being combative?

You really should know how silly this makes you look, even to someone sharing your judgement of how democratic those processes are in NK or China. They're just explaining how things work in the political systems of those countries objectively.

If you're from the US - someone can explain to you how the electoral college works without making a judgement on whether or not that's democratic or not. If you're not from the US, many democratic systems have such mechanics like indirect appointments or indirect voting, whether good or bad.

Objective knowledge gives you the power to form better opinions and take action, including for those systems of power that you are a part of. Rejecting such knowledge unconditionally because it's about a country you don't like (or anything you don't like) is incredibly self defeating in the long term. It makes you easy to manipulate.

"I'll have you know my great-great-great-great*10^8^ ancestor turned into oil recently, have some damn respect for my deep family history!" /s

You are probably confusing fine tuning with training. You can fine tune an existing model to produce more output in line with sample images, essentially embedding a default "style" into every thing it produces afterwards (Eg. LoRAs). That can be done with such a small image size, but it still requires the full model that was trained on likely billions of images.

There's always just people that mess up on the form. But they also monitor the sign rate and saw some periods of higher than normal signing in the middle of the night in the EU - indicating someone might have ran a bot to sign with invalid information. The EU only validates the signatures once the petition is closed, so they need a safe margin where even with a significant amount of invalid signatures, they still make it. Afaik 1.2 mil is about what they would expect for a normal vote of this size to be safe, and 1.4 mil is basically more than enough to compensate for any bad actors.

Ross explained it in his last video - there are reasons to be skeptical and unsure if it's truly there until at least 1.4 mil signatures. And more votes is never bad. So both need more attention. If it reaches people in the EU it will also reach those in the UK.

This so very much. I've been saying it since 2020. People who think the big corporations (even the ones that use AI), aren't playing both sides of this issue from the very beginning just aren't paying attention.

It's in their interest to have those positive to AI defend them by association by energizing those negative to AI to take on an "us vs them" mentality, and the other way around as well. It's the classic divide and conquer.

Because if people refuse to talk to each other about it in good faith, and refuse to treat each other with respect, learn where they're coming from or why they hold such opinions, you can keep them fighting amongst themselves, instead of banding together and demanding realistic, and fair policies in regards to AI. This is why bad faith arguments and positions must be shot down on both the side you agree with and the one you disagree with.

A court will decide such cases. Most AI models aren't trained for this purpose of whitewashing content even if some people would imply that's all they do, but if you decided to actually train a model for this explicit purpose you would most likely not get away with it if someone dragged you in front of a court for it.

It's a similar defense that some file hosting websites had against hosting and distributing copyrighted content (Eg. MEGA), but in such cases it was very clear to what their real goals were (especially in court), and at the same time it did not kill all file sharing websites, because not all of them were built with the intention to distribute illegal material with under the guise of legitimate operation.