He has a child.
He knows what it would mean for the child if he sat years behind bars. That changes the calculation quite a bit!

A loving parent won’t get themself in a jail unless it’s something that benefits the child enough to cover for losing a parent for many years.

Suspended sentences work so that if you trigger the activation of the suspended sentence during the probation time, the whole length of the suspended sentence starts rolling. Therefore, if at 4 years and 11 months of a 5-year probation you do a crime that triggers the activation of your suspended sentence, you sit 7 years. And if you commit the same crime on day 8 of the probation, you still sit the same 7 years.

At least over here in Finland it can also work so that the suspended sentence is only a couple of months for some crimes, but the probation is still 4 years or 6 years or whatever. People often read that “damn, only two months and they are free”, but in reality it means you must spend 5-ish years having to be mindful of not doing any similar-ish, even much less serious, crime or you’ll find yourself sitting behind bars for those two months plus whatever the repeated offence carries.

It is implied in the article that the chatbot was able to point out details about the image that the reporter either could not immediately recognize without some kind of outside help or did not bother looking for.

So, the chatbot added making the reporter notice something on the photo in a few seconds that would have taken several minutes for the reporter to notice without aid of technology.

You can see my comment history to determine if I’m an LLM or not :)

In any case, have fun in your circles!

If the part of the image that reveals the image was made by an AI is obvious enough, why contact a specialist? Of course, reporters should absolutely be trained to spot such things with their bare eyes without something telling them specifically where to look. But still, once the reporter can already see what’s ridiculously wrong in the image, it would be waste of the specialist’s time to call them to come look at the image.

The article says they used ChatGPT or some similar LLM bot. It says they used a chatbot, and that’s what the word chatbot means by default. A skilled reporter mentions if it was something else.

The reporter used a chatbot such as ChatGPT to ask if there’s anything suspicious in the image, the chatbot, by coincidence, happened to point out something in the photo that the reporter could then recognise as AI-generated indeed, and got on typing his article again.

The only part of this that is not mentioned in the article is that the reporter confirmed the referred spot in the image with his own eyes, but that is such an integral part of a reporter’s education that you need specific reasons to work against the assumption that this was done.

There’s hoping that the reporter then looked at the image and noticed, “oh, true! That’s an obvious spot there!”

Ah, so the object slides a very little bit, causing printed filament to be in a spot where there should be none yet, which produces a tiny hill that might even slide another quarter a millimetre and gather even more filament on top of it, at which point the object to be printed touches the extruder?

I’d assumeits biodegradation takes 5 years instead of something like 10 000 years of conventional plastics

Yes. The government officials are representatives of the state. Whatever they do, the state does. The state’s (or county’s) doings are consequences of the elected council members’ decisions.

You vote wrong, your tax money might end up spent unwisely. (And often, you vote in a sensible manner, but most of your neighbours don’t. And then the money gets spent the way most of your neighbours had wanted. By doing stupid illegal raids and paying their consequences.)

Klarna can also be used for payments directly from your bank account. They probably didn’t have another platform for handling that internationally. Much nicer than using a bank card for the payment!

(Well, okay: That site has elected to disable that feature. I tried choosing Helsinki, Finland as delivery location and payment by Klarna, and all I got was this:

Kiitos kun harkitsit Klarnaa

Arvostamme kiinnostustasi fiksumpaa maksutapaa kohtaan. Valitettavasti joustavat maksuvaihtoehtomme eivät ole juuri nyt saatavilla tällä alueella tai tälle valuutalle.

Tiedämme, ettei tämä ole paras mahdollinen tilanne, mutta toivomme pian tarjoavamme maksuvaihtoehtojamme useammissa paikoissa.

So, they don’t want to use Klarna for what would actually be a fair and sensible thing, only for the bad stuff. Heh.)

Why does this work?

Or, more precisely: Why does the dirty plate cause this balling-up?

If there’s any risk you might lose something you’ve printed while outside, it’s very good if the material is biodegradable!

Nah. Nobody reasoned with him. He just got angry at Putin. He’s an animal of instincts and feelings, not one of logic. He does random things. A random decision can sometimes be good, sometimes bad.

You cannot really say anything about the quality of a decision just from it being in the group of “decisions that can also be chosen randomly”.

the people who hold the other keys are the ones most likely to lead a coup against putin.

They are also ones that will absolutely, unavoidably, get informed if Putin wants to launch nuclear weapons. It’s unlikely they will agree, so if Putin ever is to ask them to use their “keys”, he will show himself as an utmost danger to their lives, and they will therefore organize Putin to die within the next 15 minutes or so. And if he manages to hide in a bunker, he will be completely isolated there and will de facto no longer be the POTRF.
Someone else will then take over.

I was a bit lost on what you are referring to… Is it these three lines as one of the mentioned historical echoes that aren’t mentioned in the rest of the article?

Historical Echoes

(…)

Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre (1973):
A president gutted DOJ to protect himself. Substitute “DoD” for “DOJ,” and the rhyme is chilling.

(…)

If something else, it would be interesting knowing what.

Here’s a good article on what this might well be about: https://www.jackhopkinsnow.com/p/how-to-read-hegseths-mass-recall

Vance and Hegseth arent, though…

I had to google the Dead Sea Effect: it means that when a workplace has a bad culture, the most skilled and ambitious workers are first to leave and those who have a habit to do the minimum will remain.

Anyway, I’d say this effect is weaker in this situation, because many workers are there truly to serve their country, not merely as “generic workers”. They might feel that they have something important to contribute to the society, which means there’s an actual chance for even some of the best to return.

So, they shot because they were fearing for their safety?

And they shot from behind the car, through the back window, while the car was driving away from both of them.
Okay.

What was the threat they were trying to stay from?