This is cool! Do you know to add the Santa voice to a newly created Agent? It's not showing up on the ElevenLabs UI. Can't get the proper santa AGENT_ID working.
Thanks! We created a custom professional voice clone for this purpose using a voice actor. Let me check with Santa to see if we have permission to make his voice public :)
>It doesn't much matter if it's really true or not. The real question is whether it's plausible or not.
God lord, is that really the standard we want to use for any news source (even social news aggregation, such as Hacker News)? I may be lying but I'm lying well so that's basically as good as the truth?
Whether or not this story actually happened is irrelevant as there's nothing any of us can do to help the situation. It is however useful as a jumping off point for discussion and to come to a consensus about what we should do in a similar scenario.
Facts about this particular incident are irrelevant to a generalized discussion about police power and how we as people should respond to an irrational and/or overzealous police force. It is entirely uninteresting to discuss particular facts of an isolated incident; the real discussion comes from a generalization of the issues involved. For the purpose of initiating discussion, all that matters is that the scenario described is plausible. Of course its more than plausible, similar scenarios have played out before where well intentioned reports ended up getting investigated themselves. Discussing the pros vs cons of such a scenario do not require that the initial jumping off point be provably true.
Truth matters in discussions as well as the news. If we can't bring fact and reason to discourse, what's the point? Also, I'd hope the Hacker News community has at least a slightly higher standard for itself than 4Chan.
Ignoring the commentary on whether or not this needs to be a true story to be worth discussion, or as something to speculate on likelihood -- I've got the odd feeling that I trust the story more from 4chan than I do many "reputable" media sources today.
It seems the more mainstream media I consume, the more I notice faults in the reporting that, even where unintentional, connote bias. A simple, throwaway example from 2 minutes ago; the Grist reported on a possible fracking-induced earthquake. The earthquake was a relatively harmless 3.something, but the illustration for the photo was a large concrete wall that had been deeply cracked[1], as if to suggest that the earthquake had caused it.
In short, it's rare that I read an article from any news source without being able to point out either an inaccuracy, a vagueness or a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. That isn't to suggest that 4chan is inherently more reliable -- clearly, trolls like this happen all the time, and just for the lulz, but I don't see it as inherently less reliable a source either.
This FAQ includes what I think are very misleading statements about CISPA; for instance, CISPA is clearly not intended to enforce copyright, and includes provisions that no copyright advocate would have accepted were that the purpose of the law. For instance, CISPA, unlike any other statute in the US Code, specifically exempts ToS violations from the purview of the statute.
There are many laws that were intended for x and subsequently used for Y. This is the whole problem with not watching the policce and prosecutors and trusting them to do public good. They have their own career goals and personal failings getting in the way of public goods.
Reread my comment: the bill contains measures that make it difficult to use the act to defend copyright. If it's a backdoor SOPA (the venn diagram between those two acts are two adjacent disconnected circles), why does it do that?
'Backdoor SOPA?' Those are your words, not the EFF's, and they're concerned about a lot of this legislation besides the abuse by copright holders.
Anyways, I believe you're referring to this section: 'Does CISPA do enough to prevent abuse of the law for copyright enforcement?'
Here's the relevant text from that section:
CISPA’s definition of "cyber threat information" includes information directly pertaining to a threat to "confidentiality." But what does confidentiality mean? The definition encompasses measures designed for preserving "authorized restrictions on access," including means for protecting "proprietary information." "Proprietary information" is not defined, and could be read to include copyrighted information. For example, one type of restriction on access that is designed to protect proprietary information is digital rights management (DRM).
The problem here is the vagueness of the language. As others as have pointed out, the concern is not so much about intent of the language, but abuse of the vagueness to strongly serve the interests' of copyright holders over the general public.
Please read the bill, not just EFF's summary of the bill. To be covered under CISPA, the information must be stored or transmitted on a protected system, and whatever the violation is, it can't be either a consumer terms of service agreement or a consumer licensing agreement.
Additionally, published content isn't confidential.
I was there yesterday when Elon supported the new bill to the committee. Each and every single member seemed infatuated. They're personally setting up a meeting with Elon & The Texas Automobile Dealers Association to talk things through.
From yesterday's experience, I'd be surprised if Tesla didn't get its way.
