Seems the original ::contents proposal is where it's at now, though there hasn't been action on it for some time. Not sure if they hit a snag or it's just on the back burner

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2406

This proposal has the benefit of not violating the tree structure should multiple :wrap rules apply to overlapping elements.

So what? I can also open an image in Photoshop and make sure it saves out some Photoshop specific EXIF data and try to claim the image was doctored. What I can't do is go and put my deceptive altered file up in place of the original in all the places on the Internet it exists.

I had to think about it, how about if the claim were:

If you take a photograph that is misidentified as AI generated, you can “preserve the historical record“ by using this tool before publishing the image.

(Anyone know the false positive rate with watermark IDs, would’ve hoped it’s like zero)

The tropes that AI introduces into articles are very noticeable, quite annoying, and very unnatural -- they unfortunately don't write well. It seems people use them to "polish" up their writing but in reality it would have read better if they hadn't.

My current pet peave is using period instead of comma, as in:

> My people lived the other side of this equation. Not the factory floor. The receiving end.

Ostensibly this is supposed to add gravitas, but it's very often done in places where that gravitas isn't needed, and it comes off as if I'm reading the script for an action movie trailer.

> The tropes that AI introduces into articles are very noticeable, quite annoying, and very unnatural -- they unfortunately don't write well.

Quite paradoxical: when its a person's native language we can spot it a mile away but there's no shortage of engineers who claim how good the code output is.

Whatever the reason for the default tone of AI in English, it's still there when generating code. It makes me think that the senior engineers who claim that it produces awesome output just don't understand the specific programming language as a someone who thinks in it almost natively.

People have also started copying the AI tropes, especially your period/comma example.

I am not sure if it is necessarily copied. A lot of influencer-style people used some of these patterns (periods, not X but Y). So I'm not sure who is copying who?

These patterns are learned from magazine articles and other long-form publications. The tendency to have unnecessarily pithy/hooky section titles is one that particularly irks me, but it's not like AI invented that. I was reading some DIY books that are published by a company that does a lot of web/magazine work and they structure the text in the same way (this is all pre-LLM).

Content creators are starting to include these traits into their scripts now, too. It's uncanny when you (literally) hear it.

> Content creators are starting to include these traits into their scripts now, too.

Why would you assume this when the more likely reasonable is that the 'content creators' are just pasting LLM output?

I feel like the problem is that it's both. We're sanding off the long tail of human expression. It's not profitable this quarter, you see. Faster to let the AI do it.

I'm sure that's exactly what people are doing, but it's more difficult to tell from a recited script until someone drops a "It's not x, but Y".

Unnecessary emphasis can get... quite comical... indeed.

It really feels sometimes like they were trained on too much short-form fiction or something. Really stunts their sentence and paragraph texture.

The uncanny valley is an attractor basin.

*Pronunciation

Hey, that was the american spelling.

*wush

It's actually a third party terminal emulator: https://iterm2.com/

As the article shows, it is a bug in iTerm2. cat is just one program that could trigger it, the key thing is outputting attacker controlled text to the terminal when the attacker can control what files are present (ie unzipping a folder that includes a specific executable file at a well chosen location that gets triggered to run when the readme is output to the terminal)

Or they'll (the site operators using Cloudflare proxy) make ill considered firewall rules like "If not Chrome, require security check".

What's your point? You can configure this in Nginx too

Nginx has a built in recaptcha page based on rules? News to me.

Even if it does, the point of Cloudflare's WAF is to avoid the traffic touching the origin if the security check doesn't succeed, so any nginx solution isn't really providing the same value.

You had me at "is not Oracle"

Ah, progress!

Except the domain did not expire, if you check WHOIS.

Oh my bad. Top comment when I had said this was a claim that it was expiration related. Sorry for piling on to the claim.