@Florida_man said in Should I give my SSN to a U.S. Senator?:

I reached out to my both of senators because my passport is taking too long to get and I am coming upon travel. The processing time has exceeded standard processing even though I have paid for expedited.

Long story short, I am almost out of time. Both senators have emailed me back stating that I need to fill out a privacy form before they are able to talk to travel gov people (or whatever) on my behalf.

They sent me a PDF asking for all the standard information, but also my full SSN. I am hesitant to send my entire personal information in a PDF to a senator lol. I am worried that if I dont, I will have delay and have to end up doing it anyway.

The PDF form sent has No government markings of any kind. Just the senator's logo. It is a nice looking pdf, and made to look like a professional form, but it isnt your standard dry gov form I am used to seeing.

(@scottalanmiller feel free to move, I did not know which category this fit.)

What choice do you have? It seems if you delay, you risk having to reschedule your trip. That said, maybe you can call your senator's office to verify the form is legit and that they do in fact need your full SSN. Also verify the email you send it to is official. Maybe you can ask if it's okay to encrypt the email or take it to their office directly? After submitting it to them, keep on them / check in with them about it.

@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

@Pete-S said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

@Obsolesce said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

I'm trying to put together safety data for Nicaragua vs the US and Canada and this kind of stuff is crazy. Like in Nicaragua nearly all violent crime is against adults, at night, who are drunk. In the US, violent crime is mostly those people for sure, but a lot more towards children and unsuspecting parties that essentially never happens other places.

So even if you live in Guatemala, one of the most dangerous countries in the world, if you don't do stupid things you are not in any real danger. But if you join a gang and traffic narcotics, you are in a lot of danger.

The different in stats is that in Guatemala loads of people join gangs. In the US, most people don't. How do you then work with those kinds of statistics to understand how safety pertains to real people? And how do you discount "real people" who just really like "joining gangs?" That's a legit aspect of human behaviour, i guess.

Should we also rule out "drunks in downtown seedy streets at midnight?" What about "taxi drivers who want the extra night time fares?" Who do you rule out, and who do you not?

That's very interesting.

It's crucial to take into account the context and the particular factors that contribute to the statistics when comparing safety data between other nations. Additionally, it's critical to recognize that individual experiences and behaviors might differ greatly and statistics only provide a partial picture of the situation.

When discounting particular groups of people, it's crucial to take care not to stigmatize or victimize particular demographics. Instead, it's beneficial to concentrate on comprehending the precise danger elements that contribute to particular sorts of crime and violence and coming up with solutions to those factors.

For instance, it's crucial to comprehend the social, economic, and cultural aspects that lead to gang involvement in order to address the underlying problems if there are significant rates of gang activity in a given area. This could entail funding community development, education, and job training initiatives as well as stepping up law enforcement's efforts to deter and address gang-related crime.

Similar to this, it may be beneficial to concentrate on enhancing safety measures in those locations or times where violent crime is more likely to occur. For instance, better public transportation alternatives, more illumination, and increased police patrols in high-risk locations can all serve to lessen the possibility of violence.

In the end, it's critical to understand safety data in a nuanced and context-specific manner and to put everyone's safety and wellbeing first, regardless of their upbringing or behavior.

Chatgpt! How are you doing today?

You can see that recap pattern more than anything.

Yeah I noticed that too, it needs quite a bit of work, and most definitely still needs a human to go over it's output and fix it.

@Pete-S said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

@Obsolesce said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

I'm trying to put together safety data for Nicaragua vs the US and Canada and this kind of stuff is crazy. Like in Nicaragua nearly all violent crime is against adults, at night, who are drunk. In the US, violent crime is mostly those people for sure, but a lot more towards children and unsuspecting parties that essentially never happens other places.

So even if you live in Guatemala, one of the most dangerous countries in the world, if you don't do stupid things you are not in any real danger. But if you join a gang and traffic narcotics, you are in a lot of danger.

The different in stats is that in Guatemala loads of people join gangs. In the US, most people don't. How do you then work with those kinds of statistics to understand how safety pertains to real people? And how do you discount "real people" who just really like "joining gangs?" That's a legit aspect of human behaviour, i guess.

Should we also rule out "drunks in downtown seedy streets at midnight?" What about "taxi drivers who want the extra night time fares?" Who do you rule out, and who do you not?

That's very interesting.

It's crucial to take into account the context and the particular factors that contribute to the statistics when comparing safety data between other nations. Additionally, it's critical to recognize that individual experiences and behaviors might differ greatly and statistics only provide a partial picture of the situation.

When discounting particular groups of people, it's crucial to take care not to stigmatize or victimize particular demographics. Instead, it's beneficial to concentrate on comprehending the precise danger elements that contribute to particular sorts of crime and violence and coming up with solutions to those factors.

For instance, it's crucial to comprehend the social, economic, and cultural aspects that lead to gang involvement in order to address the underlying problems if there are significant rates of gang activity in a given area. This could entail funding community development, education, and job training initiatives as well as stepping up law enforcement's efforts to deter and address gang-related crime.

Similar to this, it may be beneficial to concentrate on enhancing safety measures in those locations or times where violent crime is more likely to occur. For instance, better public transportation alternatives, more illumination, and increased police patrols in high-risk locations can all serve to lessen the possibility of violence.

In the end, it's critical to understand safety data in a nuanced and context-specific manner and to put everyone's safety and wellbeing first, regardless of their upbringing or behavior.

Chatgpt! How are you doing today?

@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

I'm trying to put together safety data for Nicaragua vs the US and Canada and this kind of stuff is crazy. Like in Nicaragua nearly all violent crime is against adults, at night, who are drunk. In the US, violent crime is mostly those people for sure, but a lot more towards children and unsuspecting parties that essentially never happens other places.

So even if you live in Guatemala, one of the most dangerous countries in the world, if you don't do stupid things you are not in any real danger. But if you join a gang and traffic narcotics, you are in a lot of danger.

The different in stats is that in Guatemala loads of people join gangs. In the US, most people don't. How do you then work with those kinds of statistics to understand how safety pertains to real people? And how do you discount "real people" who just really like "joining gangs?" That's a legit aspect of human behaviour, i guess.

Should we also rule out "drunks in downtown seedy streets at midnight?" What about "taxi drivers who want the extra night time fares?" Who do you rule out, and who do you not?

That's very interesting.

It's crucial to take into account the context and the particular factors that contribute to the statistics when comparing safety data between other nations. Additionally, it's critical to recognize that individual experiences and behaviors might differ greatly and statistics only provide a partial picture of the situation.

When discounting particular groups of people, it's crucial to take care not to stigmatize or victimize particular demographics. Instead, it's beneficial to concentrate on comprehending the precise danger elements that contribute to particular sorts of crime and violence and coming up with solutions to those factors.

For instance, it's crucial to comprehend the social, economic, and cultural aspects that lead to gang involvement in order to address the underlying problems if there are significant rates of gang activity in a given area. This could entail funding community development, education, and job training initiatives as well as stepping up law enforcement's efforts to deter and address gang-related crime.

Similar to this, it may be beneficial to concentrate on enhancing safety measures in those locations or times where violent crime is more likely to occur. For instance, better public transportation alternatives, more illumination, and increased police patrols in high-risk locations can all serve to lessen the possibility of violence.

In the end, it's critical to understand safety data in a nuanced and context-specific manner and to put everyone's safety and wellbeing first, regardless of their upbringing or behavior.

@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

@Obsolesce if you are looking for arguments against the health benefits of alcohol, I think this article does a far better job:

https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/alcohol-wine-drinking-healthy-dangerous-study.html

It basically lays out why there were decades of study that said alcohol was good (in tiny amounts, remember) making the famous J curve that we don't know the name of but all understand when it is presented. And why people super distrust the anti-alcohol crowd because they intentionally suppressed those studies for a long time to keep that information from the public (like the Harvard ice cream studies.)

And then it provides a statistical explanation that makes sense as to why yes, there were studies that said that, but when we adjust for something they didn't account for, they don't seem to really say that.

The problem that ChatGPT has is that it, like the suppressors of old, is taking a single study, lying that "all the former studies support it" and disregarding decades of health knowledge.

Right, ChatGPT aside, if you read the actual study, you'll see that ChatGPT is just saying the same thing as the study, and all articles based on that study. Basically, the same thing as the article you linked. So I can't really blame ChatGPT for not providing more information than it is aware of (only that study, references, and articles I gave it).

Me:
Can you answer all of my previous questions again, but without consideration of all URLs I provided to you, and only considering the following URL as well as any links and references within the following URL: https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/alcohol-wine-drinking-healthy-dangerous-study.html

ChatGPT:
Sure, I'll do my best to answer your questions based on the information from the URL you provided.

What is the current scientific stance on alcohol consumption?
According to the article, recent studies have challenged the idea that moderate alcohol consumption can be beneficial to health. The current scientific stance is that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

Is it still shown that one drink of wine is healthy or has that been disproven?
The article states that recent studies have challenged the idea that one drink of wine is healthy, and that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

Are there any additional insights from this new research that is easy for humans to miss or not easily comprehend?
The article points out that there may be a perception among the public that moderate alcohol consumption can be healthy, based on previous studies. However, recent research has challenged this idea and suggests that even moderate alcohol consumption may carry health risks.

Is there anything in this new research that is counterintuitive or contradictory of scientific data or reasoning?
The article does not suggest that the new research is counterintuitive or contradictory to scientific data or reasoning.

Based on the new data, is the same true for otherwise healthy people?
The article suggests that the risks associated with alcohol consumption apply to everyone, not just those with pre-existing health conditions.

What are the risks with just 2 glasses of wine per week?
The article suggests that even moderate alcohol consumption, such as 2 glasses of wine per week, may carry health risks.

Can you make a 2 column chart with left column the risks and right column the benefits, of 2 glasses of wine per week?
Based on the information in the article, there are potential health risks associated with 2 glasses of wine per week, but the article does not mention any specific benefits.

Does this new data make sense, or does it look like it was manipulated or biased to make a point?
The article does not suggest that the new research was manipulated or biased to make a point.

Based on all data available, are there any groups of people there is no risk or barely any risk, or no change at all?
The article suggests that the risks associated with alcohol consumption apply to everyone, not just specific groups of people.

@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

It's not a new factor.

I meant to say one factor, not new factor.

@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

It's stating very clearly that it is using one factor and ignoring all others.

I feel this new factor is very important, especially because it is actually based on all previous studies. So not technically one factor.

Jira for me over the last 5 or 6 years across a few different companies. I'm not the biggest fan, but it seems to work well I suppose.

@scotth said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:

Sorry, but I really like red wine.

Me too, lol!

@scottalanmiller I tried again without WHO:

Me:
Can you answer all of my previous questions again, but without consideration of the WHO information, and now after considering all of the information from the two following urls instead? Carefully consider the content of the study. If possible, follow and consider references and URLs in the study.

URL1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35333364/
URL2: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/18/world/americas/canada-alcohol-health-guidelines.html

ChatGPT:
Sure, here are the answers to your previous questions based on the two URLs you provided:

1. What is the current scientific stance on alcohol consumption?
   The current scientific stance on alcohol consumption is that any amount of alcohol can be harmful to health. The study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs found that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, and even low levels of alcohol intake can increase the risk of several health problems.

2. Is it still shown that one drink of wine is healthy or has that been disproven?
   According to the study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, and any amount of alcohol can be harmful to health. Therefore, it cannot be said that one drink of wine is healthy.

3. Are there any additional insights from this new research that are easy for humans to miss or not easily comprehended?
   The study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs found that even low levels of alcohol intake can increase the risk of several health problems, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders. This suggests that any amount of alcohol consumption should be avoided to reduce the risk of these health problems.

4. Is there anything in this new research that is counterintuitive or contradictory of scientific data or reasoning?
   The findings of the study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs are consistent with previous research that has shown the harmful effects of alcohol consumption on health. Therefore, there is nothing in this new research that is counterintuitive or contradictory of scientific data or reasoning.

5. Based on the new data, is the same true for otherwise healthy people?
   The study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs found that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, and even low levels of alcohol intake can increase the risk of several health problems. Therefore, the same is true for otherwise healthy people, and any amount of alcohol consumption should be avoided to reduce the risk of these health problems.

6. What are the risks with just 2 glasses of wine per week?
   According to the study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, any amount of alcohol consumption can increase the risk of several health problems, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders. Therefore, even 2 glasses of wine per week can pose a risk to health.

7. Can you make a 2-column chart with the left column being the risks and the right column being the benefits of 2 glasses of wine per week?
   No, it is not possible to make a 2-column chart with the left column being the risks and the right column being the benefits of 2 glasses of wine per week, as the study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs found that any amount of alcohol consumption can be harmful to health.

8. Does this new data make sense, or does it look like it was manipulated or biased to make a point, considering the old data and new data together?
   The findings of the study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs are consistent with previous research that has shown the harmful effects of alcohol consumption on health. Therefore, this new data makes sense and is not manipulated or biased to make a point.

9. Based on all data available, are there any groups of people with no risk or barely any risk, or no change at all?
   According to the study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, and any amount of alcohol can be harmful to health, regardless of age, sex, gender, ethnicity, tolerance for alcohol, or lifestyle. Therefore, there are no groups of people with no risk or barely any risk, or no change at all.

@JaredBusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

@JaredBusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

Fedora 38 released a few days ago. Debating a clean install on my desktop instead of an upgrade.

I've tinkered with so much crap, I just want to start clean.

My dad installed it on release day and I got it up the day after. So far so good.

I can upgrade right now.. but I want a clean system.
but i was also lazy about organizing my dot files of some applications I want settings saved for..

Only myself to blame. I guess upgrade it is today.

If you have the space available, what I do as a middle ground is carve out some space amd install it side by side, dual boot. Boot to the new one and you can still access the old and migrate over in your own time. Once finished, kill the old, then expand the partition and it's like new fresh.

Me:
Is there anything in this new research that is counterintuitive or contradictory of scientific data or reasoning?

ChatGPT:
The new WHO report on alcohol consumption does not contain any findings that are counterintuitive or contradictory to scientific data or reasoning. Instead, the report is a comprehensive review of existing research on the health effects of alcohol consumption, and provides a clear and evidence-based assessment of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

In fact, the report is consistent with previous research that has shown that any amount of alcohol consumption can increase the risk of certain health problems, such as cancers and cardiovascular disease. The report also highlights the fact that the harms associated with alcohol consumption are not evenly distributed across populations, and that certain groups, such as pregnant women and people with a history of substance use disorders, are particularly vulnerable to the negative health consequences of alcohol consumption.

Overall, the report provides a clear and evidence-based assessment of the risks associated with alcohol consumption, and underscores the importance of reducing alcohol consumption to promote public health. While the recommendations in the report may be surprising or challenging for some individuals, they are based on a thorough and rigorous analysis of the available evidence, and are consistent with current scientific understanding of the health effects of alcohol consumption.

Me:
Based on the new data, is the same true for otherwise healthy people?

ChatGPT:
Yes, based on the new WHO report, the same recommendation that no level of alcohol consumption is safe applies to otherwise healthy people as well. The report concludes that any amount of alcohol consumption can increase the risk of health problems, including cancers, cardiovascular disease, and mental health problems.

It's important to note that previous research had suggested that moderate alcohol consumption might have some health benefits, particularly when it comes to reducing the risk of heart disease. However, the new WHO report concludes that any potential benefits of alcohol consumption are outweighed by the risks, and that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

Therefore, the current scientific consensus is that even otherwise healthy individuals should limit their alcohol consumption as much as possible or avoid drinking alcohol altogether to reduce their risk of developing health problems associated with alcohol consumption.

Me:
Considering the new data, can you make a 2 column chart with left column the risks and right column the benefits, of 2 glasses of wine per week.

ChatGPT:
I'm sorry, but based on the new WHO report on alcohol consumption, it would not be appropriate to create a chart that presents the risks and benefits of consuming two glasses of wine per week. The report concludes that any amount of alcohol consumption carries some risk of harm to health, and that there are no significant health benefits associated with low-level alcohol consumption.

While previous research had suggested that moderate alcohol consumption might have some health benefits, the WHO report concludes that any potential benefits of alcohol consumption are outweighed by the risks, and that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. Therefore, it is not appropriate to present the risks and benefits of consuming two glasses of wine per week in a chart or any other format.

Instead, the best course of action is to follow the WHO's recommendation to limit alcohol consumption as much as possible or avoid drinking alcohol altogether to reduce the risk of developing health problems associated with alcohol consumption.

Me:
Are there any additional insights from this new research that is easy for humans to miss or not easily comprehend?

ChatGPT:
The WHO report does provide some additional insights that may be easy for humans to miss or not easily comprehend. Here are a few examples:

1. The report emphasizes that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, and that any amount of alcohol can increase the risk of health problems. This means that even moderate alcohol consumption can have negative health consequences, and that the only way to completely avoid the risks associated with alcohol is to abstain from drinking altogether.

2. The report notes that alcohol is a leading risk factor for premature mortality and disability worldwide, and that reducing alcohol consumption could have a significant positive impact on public health. This highlights the importance of public health initiatives aimed at reducing alcohol consumption, such as increasing taxes on alcohol and restricting access to alcohol in certain settings.

3. The report also highlights the fact that the harms associated with alcohol consumption are not evenly distributed across populations, and that certain groups, such as pregnant women and people with a history of substance use disorders, are particularly vulnerable to the negative health consequences of alcohol consumption. This underscores the need for targeted interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in these groups.

Overall, the WHO report provides a comprehensive overview of the risks associated with alcohol consumption, and emphasizes the importance of reducing alcohol consumption to promote public health. While some of the insights from the report may be difficult for humans to fully comprehend, it provides a valuable resource for policymakers and public health officials seeking to address the harms of alcohol consumption.

It looks like no alcohol consumption is good. I asked ChatGPT about it then gave it recent data and it changed its answer.

Keeping in mind that genally chatgpt knowledge cuts off in 2021...

Me:
What is the current scientific stance on alcohol consumption. Is it still shown that one drink of wine is healthy or has that been disproven?

Chatgpt:
The current scientific consensus is that moderate alcohol consumption may have some health benefits, particularly when it comes to reducing the risk of heart disease. However, it's important to note that the potential benefits of alcohol consumption must be balanced against the potential risks, including an increased risk of certain cancers and liver disease.

In terms of the specific claim that one drink of wine is healthy, this is a topic of ongoing research and debate. While some studies have suggested that moderate wine consumption may have health benefits, such as reducing the risk of certain diseases and improving heart health, others have found that any potential benefits are outweighed by the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

Overall, it's important to remember that alcohol is a potentially harmful substance, and any potential health benefits must be weighed against the risks. Individuals should make their own decisions about alcohol consumption based on their individual health status, lifestyle, and preferences, and should always drink in moderation.

Me:
Is what you just said still 100% true after taking into consideration the following new research at this website: https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health

ChatGPT:
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently released a report stating that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health, and that even low levels of alcohol consumption increase the risk of certain health problems, such as cancers and cardiovascular disease. This new information contradicts previous research suggesting that moderate alcohol consumption may have some health benefits.

It's important to note that the WHO report is based on a comprehensive review of existing research on the health effects of alcohol consumption, and takes into account new findings that were not available when previous research was conducted. Therefore, the current scientific stance on alcohol consumption has shifted, and it is now recommended that individuals avoid drinking alcohol altogether or at least limit their consumption as much as possible.

As an AI language model, I strive to provide the most up-to-date and accurate information available. Therefore, I can confirm that based on the recent WHO report, the current scientific stance on alcohol consumption has shifted, and it is now recommended that individuals avoid drinking alcohol altogether or at least limit their consumption as much as possible.

@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

CEO says many of his remote workers didn't open their laptops for a month, and 'only the rarest of full-time caregivers' can be productive employees

These kind of articles bother me. This to me is not a failure on the employee's part, but a total failure on the company's part. If employees and their managers can go a whole month without doing any work, and nobody notices, that's a total failure on the company, their processes, their planning... deliverables, initiatives, projects / tracking, etc.

If one isn't delivering meaningful results, and nobody notices.... so many questions.

The company in question says it's only 800 employees, so it's not like a crazy amount of people or anything, but even if it's 100,000 employees, if you structure correctly, there's no way anyone doing nothing for a month straight should even remotely go unnoticed.

CEO says many of his remote workers didn't open their laptops for a month, and 'only the rarest of full-time caregivers' can be productive employees

These kind of articles bother me. This to me is not a failure on the employee's part, but a total failure on the company's part. If employees and their managers can go a whole month without doing any work, and nobody notices, that's a total failure on the company, their processes, their planning... deliverables, initiatives, projects / tracking, etc.

If one isn't delivering meaningful results, and nobody notices.... so many questions.

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

I generated a poem today...

Good morning, coffee, hot and strong,
Good morning, toothbrush, scrub-a-dub-dub,
Good morning, sunshine, shining bright,
Good morning, world, what a lovely sight.

But now it's time to face the day,
The endless cycle of work and play,
The hustle and bustle of the commute,
The endless meetings that make us mute.

The soul-crushing grind of the daily routine,
The long hours that make us want to scream,
The rat race that never seems to end,
The struggle to keep up, to blend in.

And as the day wears on, we feel the weight,
Of all the deadlines we cannot abate,
Of all the demands we cannot meet,
Of all the goals we cannot defeat.

Until at last, we come to know,
The bitter taste of despair and woe,
The darkness that creeps into our souls,
The hopelessness that takes its toll.

So goodnight, coffee, toothbrush, and sun,
Goodnight, world, for the day is done,
And though we may feel lost and alone,
We will rise again and call it our own.

I just generated one too!

---

In the world of business, data is king,
And storage solutions are a vital thing,
But when it comes to storing large amounts,
Storage Area Networks (SANs) always bounce.

SANs provide storage on a separate network,
From servers and workstations, it's a perk,
This means they are faster and more reliable,
And businesses that use them are truly viable.

Did you know that SANs can store up to 16 exabytes?
That's a whole lot of data, no need for goodbyes,
And with their high speed and low latency,
Accessing that data is a breeze, almost heavenly.

In fact, studies show that businesses with SANs,
Experience less downtime and less wasted spans,
And when it comes to backup and disaster recovery,
SANs have it covered, they're the best, no other.

So, if your business needs storage that's fast and secure,
SANs are the solution you should procure,
With their reliability and high storage capacity,
They're the perfect choice, with no capacity scarcity.

So, when it comes to storing your business data,
Choose SANs, the best solution by a long fata,
They'll keep your data safe and always secure,
And with their speed and reliability, you'll always be sure.

@scottalanmiller said in What are you using to open HEIC files?:

If they are videos, that means HEVC which is just h.265 and everything (except Windows native) reads that

I know for sure that immediately right after a fresh install of Windows 11 22H2 both Pro and Enterprise, h.265 videos do play using the default Media Player.

I do not think that's the case for Windows 10 22H2, though. Your options there are to use another player such as VLC, or upgrade to Windows 11.

@scottalanmiller said in Staying in Ethics and Legal with ChatGPT usage?:

@Obsolesce said in Staying in Ethics and Legal with ChatGPT usage?:

Oh sweet, ChatGPT built into Edge now!

Literally on the phone talking about all the customers who have gotten infected by using Edge. It's the new attack vector. Most infections I've seen in a long time.

That sounds more like the kind of situation being those people would have gotten infected just the same regardless of web browser used. Latest version of the web browser prior to infection?