For now, yes.

Although having tried to use the audio recaptca before, it felt like a psychotic episode.

Mastodon’s implementation of outboxes is broken, the Devs don’t seem to have any intention of fixing it.

There’s no way this is ADA compliant.

Naming an AI tool after a god of mischief seems like tempting the fates. 😆

This isn’t the first project like this, motionEye OS has been around for years.

This is my take too.

People were probably making the same jokes in the early mainframe era of computers.

How many tokens does laughing use?

Does he say how much it cost him?

Honestly not a terrible use of ai. I imagine it’s pretty good at spotting things in a sparse environment like the middle of the ocean.

Crazy when they could’ve pulled a comeback with an AI wrapper.

I’ve read that humans, chimpanzees and wolves are the only animals that have shown a capacity for genocide.

I forgot.

Humanity has already outgrown the cradle called earth, the longer it takes us to leave it behind the greater the risk that will destroy it and ourselves.

At least for Scotland the reason is historical, before the union they had their own pound, so they continued to mint their own coin.

Scottish notes technically aren’t legal tender even in Scotland, but this because legal tender has a very narrow meaning in relation to court debts. They’re technically promissory notes, the bank of Scotland has to hold reserves of sterling notes to cover them, although most is in special £100m value notes. Banks will accept them in England, some shops will not because they don’t recognise them and think they’re fake.

Just make sure the label isn’t attached by the overlock seam that holds the garment together, I’ve seen a few things with tags attached like that.

I suspect onlyoffice will win this one

I’m sceptical tbh, their interpretation of the AGPL seems questionable. The specific wording in the AGPL they’re relying on for their logo preservation term is:

Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it

IMO a logo isn’t attribution, and even if it was there’s no way it could be considered reasonable to require it if they don’t allow you to use it.

They seem to have a questionable interpretation of the AGPL https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/onlyoffice/

Considering the specific clause they cite allows

Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it

A logo isn’t attribution, and even if it was there’s no way it could be considered reasonable to require it if they don’t allow you to use it.

I can’t tell if this is supposed to be for or against glyphosate?

They also have to continually convince politicians and other politically minded people to give them money, and risk having it taken away if their results are politically inconvenient.

Where is god going to get lawyers from? The other guy has them all.