IKER @was-sabii - Tumblr Blog

yellowmotorola

Keke Palmer for InStyle US May 2021 Digital Edition

evilvillain123456789

driving 90 minutes to my favorite empty lot to smoke 1 cigarette

cognitohazardous

then its literally not you girl

curseworm

the secret cheat code for women is realizing you dont have to date men

curseworm

this doesnt just go for lesbians it goes for bi women and straight women too. i cant even count how many times straight women have told me “i wish i was a lesbian so i didnt have to date men” but guess what … u Dont have to date men

curseworm

to be clear this also isnt necessarily saying ‘go date women instead!!’ its just saying…. u dont have to date men. u dont have to be dating women in order to not date men! in fact if ur not attracted to women at all please dont date women just as a substitute for men. but if dating men isnt making u happy… u dont have to do that. u dont have to make a space in ur life for men

cheshmenoor

aonik

andiree

KNICKS IN FIVE BABY 🧡💙🧡💙🧡💙

j-k-i-ng

“Lush From Above” by | Lukas Hardieck

Oahu, Kāneʻohe Forest Reserve, Hawaii

decomposedmaw

Pixel post dividers for everyone! It's not much, but feel free to use them if you'd like. I don't know the ideal size for these, so let me know if they're too tall. I can make them a bit shorter next time.

depsidase

bramblepatch

The thing is you can have a grassy lawn or even a golf course without it being an ecological disaster, you just have to a: be cool about having the occasional non-grass plant in the mix and b: be willing to live in a climate that supports grass without irrigation.

bramblepatch

Golf courses in California are an abomination which is why the sport was in fact invented in Scotland.

abstrusetheorist

I always thought that golf as a sport should be adapted to the local native landscape. I think this will encourage regional pride when local golfers completely trounce visitors at Swamp Golf, Desert Golf, Forest Golf, etc. Rich tourists will be pressured to travel extensively to experience all forms of golf, instead of staying in their backyard country club golf courses. Internet discourse will probably somehow get worse but I think this is a small price to pay.

sztupy

A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou

ayeforscotland

Let’s fucking go

made-in-manetheren

This is HUGE.

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.

alianoralacanta

5. If the words are Google's, this solidifies the position of universities who demand that all answers from AI are fully cited. If all the in-line citations now have to be (Google, 2026), that's going to make it obvious when someone's trying to use Google as a source. There's still the difficulty with people who are academically dishonest by trying to pass off the AI writing as their own. 6. 91% accuracy is officially too low to use as a source of references, which means the AI can't be used as a source of references either. This makes it less legitimate for such purposes than Wikipedia of all places (Wikipedia might need date/time proof of when it was accessed for the reference to be valid, but at least it is possible to prove the link existed at a particular date and time). 7. This will help encourage the rollout of courses on how to avoid AI search for students who need academic accuracy, because it's statistically not good enough to use. 8. This strengthens the case intellectual property authors have against Google in the EU, as this is proof that an intellectual property transfer took place.