DavidBrooker t1_jadws4y wrote

Even if that were true (which I don't believe was the case), that actually gets to my original point: that TNG suffered less from this issue due to its greater use of physical models, whereas the bulk of later-season DS9 exterior shots were CG. TNG simply had a greater proportion of practical effects - shot on film - than CGI effects than DS9, and DS9 more than Voyager. For example, the only appearance of a CGI model for the Enterprise D (edit: on TV) was in DS9 - the model never appeared in TNG, and every exterior shot of the Enterprise in that series was a physical model. Meanwhile, in DS9, by the later seasons most of the Defiant's exterior shots were CGI (and those that weren't were mostly stock footage from prior seasons).

The TNG remaster made significant use of new CGI, or substantially updated CGI, where the base assets had to be updated. They were often not starting from scratch, but in no sense just re-rendering. Moreover, many assets were created brand new from scratch because the base assets were considered unacceptable (wide shots of planets, for example, are the most common, as well as some whole characters like the crystalline entity).


DavidBrooker t1_jadh8w2 wrote

What does the value of quoting a chatbot, or what does the improvement afforded by quoting a chatbot, have to do with what should be allowed? What is and is not allowed is an ethical issue, not one of pedagogy. Being lazy and unoriginal is allowed already, this is just a new means of being lazy and unoriginal so long as it isn't also done unethically.

A teacher is still free to give an F for someone who writes an essay full of block quotes to ChatGPT. They're just not obligated to give an F and recommend disciplinary action.


DavidBrooker t1_ja8iq4b wrote

Your use of 'could' seems misplaced. They haven't made a phone in a decade, and have a revenue of 22B euros. I think that's not quite as speculative as you're implying.

Their largest business sector is networking equipment, where it is a major competitor to Cisco and Huawei. It's building a big chunk of America's 5G rollout.


DavidBrooker t1_j5qu035 wrote

I just read through 18 USC 798 and it really does not seem to suggest that the receiving party / 'unauthorized person' is at fault, at least under that law. As I am not a lawyer, could you explain why that is and/or why a layperson's reading is misleading?

Edit: 18 USC 793 and 794 deal with simple possession of "defense information", but not necessarily classified information. Notwithstanding the fact that these descriptions may have significant overlap, is it through this mechanism that you're referencing? ie, are these terms de facto or de jure synonymous, or are they merely commonly mutually applicable?


DavidBrooker t1_j5qi9q6 wrote

Leaking classified documents is a crime.

Playing a game whose community members have leaked classified documents is not a crime.

By way of comparison, giving classified documents to the Washington Post is a crime. Receiving classified documents as a journalist at the Washington Post is not a crime. Reading the Washington Post is also not a crime.


DavidBrooker t1_j5qhwbg wrote

The sum-total of the 'news' in this article is that an interviewer asked a yes/no question about a game. That 'may' in the title is probably going to buckle under the strain its taking, since we have no idea what the consequences of that question are, there's no indication that it's unto itself a security flag, and we don't even know if there's a follow-up question.

Now, this is just pure speculation, which I suppose qualifies me to write for PCMag, but I'm going to guess there is at least one or two more forks in the interviewer's question script before they declare you a risk to national security.


DavidBrooker t1_j47v4uh wrote

My brother - a personal trainer, and a former national powerlifting record holder in his weight class - insists that the only equipment that is truly 'required' for strength training at nearly any level are dumbbells. Everything else is a luxury (even if, obviously, luxuries are nice).