Reads to me like she’s refusing contact and he doesn’t want to accept that.
At least he had the sense not to name her.
I wonder if he was unfaithful in the last week or so? Because from what I’ve heard, a lot of sex goes on among the athletes during the Olympics. And isn’t that subject to the Las Vegas Rule (what happens in the athletes’ village stays in the athletes’ village)?
Article says he said it was three months ago.
ETA: he might have done it again in the last week, of course; although I’m not sure if it would still count as being unfaithful if she’s called the relationship off, which again is what it reads like to me.
ETA again — that supposed rule would only apply to people who’ve agreed with their partners that it does. Or, I suppose, to those who have at the time no partner to make such an agreement with.
Numbskulls on Twitter are trying to use Grok to solve the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping.
As long as Grok looks around the internet, finds that musk’s and trump’s faces are the most common ones around, and delivers nicely generated AI images of trump and musk each dressed like that guy in that scene it’ll be perfect.
Maybe they should inform the police about this cutting-edge technology!
Not even. The point of the rule is that the partner doesn’t need to know. Shitty way to treat your partner, but as common as mud.
Assuming that the girlfriend already knows, and he’s trying to atone, admitting guilt in a high-visibility context sounds to me like a bold, but potentially rational, move.
Why am I getting flashbacks to Enemy of the State?
The people who think Grok can “unmask” the kidnapper are basically doing the equivalent of pointing at a blurry photo on a computer screen and shouting “Enhance!”
But it always works on TV!!?!. And all but instantly on CSI:Whateverthefuck.
That’s not going to work. You have to press the “Enhance” key at the same time.
You may need an extra set of hands for that.
Remember the Super Bowl ad for Ring that demonstrated how it could be exploited by stalkers and ICE?
Amazon is cancelling that partnership after it turns out consumers don’t WANT to live in an AI-powered Panopticon.
It would be wonderful for locating lost pets.
[Maxwell Smart] If only they used their genius for niceness instead of evil. [/MS]
It’s still not entirely clear to me whether a Ring user has to specifically opt out in order for its videos to not be automatically shared with the lost dog owner.
i don’t use any of the popular home security camera devices/systems like Ring, Nest, Wyze, Blink etc., mostly because of subscriptions being mandatory to get the best features. The idea of them potentially sharing images or video with law enforcement without my consent is not a plus either. I’d likely send relevant stuff to police if they asked.
Yes, I saw the commercial during the Super Bowl. And in a perfect world, it would be a good thing. But the way it would actually be used is bad, which prompted Maxwell Smart.
“Give Us Access to Your Ring Camera and Maybe We’ll Find Your Dog”
Article title is misleading. Should say, “Give Us Access to Your Ring Camera and Maybe We’ll Find Someone Else’s Dog”.
Give us access to your Ring camera or the dog gets it.
It’s more like “Give us access to your Ring camera and maybe we’ll find your dog, and also your ex-girlfriend who walks that dog”.