Every change looks like corruption in the eyes of people who don't like it.
And corruption looks like evolution to some people.
Personally, I'm in favor of words meaning as much of the same thing over time as possible. It enhances communication and understanding. If you need a new meaning, you either need a new word or you need to explain yourself at a bit more length. Lest you "decimate" (cough) the listener's/reader's understanding... you get me?
If the test article is not moving it does no work so no violation of conservation of energy. But as you point out you are going to need to carefully eliminate quite a lot, as everything contains electrons, those electrons can move and create polarization which can create electrostatic forces often in unexpected way. When I was playing with electrostatics it was terribly easy to get this wrong even in very simple scenarios. I expect a guy with as much experience as this guy purports to have would know that, but then, even the best of us get excited and overlook things.
The world is full of folks with impressive credentials, it's inevitable a few of them will dive headfirst into crackpot theories for a variety of reasons.
Not to say this guy is a crackpot, but what he's claiming should be pretty easy to demonstrate to credible outside experts. That he hasn't done that rings many alarm bells.
I'm not saying anything about changing temperatures are man fault or not, blah blah blah, but when has anything in nature stayed the same? It's in constant change. Some are slow, other can be quick, but it's nature. Stuff changes.
I'm just baffled by the statement "the past is no longer a guide to the future." It never has been. Just like investing.
I'm baffled by people who insist on taking statements completely literally when it's obvious that's not what the speaker meant. Especially when the person in question actually explains what the statement means!
"What if the statistical connections that we are basing our predictions on are no longer valid?"
ie, the scientist who obviously understands that nature changes, is worried because this current change isn't really predicted by current models. If the warming keeps up that means the models are wrong in the way we really don't want them to be wrong and that's bad news.
Read the article. No data was mentioned that the ban is based on. So, I googled to see if the British Columbian government was using data, say, from California, which has a lot of autonomous cars.
California has level 4 taxis (which have had problems) but few (if any) level 3 consumer cars. So I'm not sure what data you think BC should be using.
I couldn't find any mention of any data or any specific concern of data in any article.
You really need folks to spell out the concerns with untested level 3 cars?
First, no autonomous level 3 (or above) cars are available for sale in BC. The articles didn't state if this is because they're illegal or there just happens to be zero. That is, why would you ban something that you either can't buy because it's already illegal? In other words, is there already a ban on level 3 cars (or above) in BC, and this is why there are zero types of these cars?
For someone complaining about data it seems to have eluded you that level 3 vehicles are so new that they haven't even made it to the Canadian market.
All that's mentioned is a quote from a BC politician who says that BC takes a "traditional" approach to this type of technology. I don't know what this means.
It means common sense. Before deploying level 3 cars on public roads they want more data.
In any case, I don't understand how a law can be passed, on a product, that may not be more dangerous (or more safe) than most drivers.
When reasonable people have a reasonable expectation that the new product may be more dangerous and they don't want to wait for a bunch of fatalities to occur to stop it.
Linus totally misses the point, which is kind of unusual.
GPT-4/5/6 might not replace him as a kernel architect, but it sure as hell is (and will increasingly be) making a ton of people in a lot of industries waaay more productive. There isn't an infinite supply of work, so a lot of jobs will go away--never to return.
And no, this isn't some millennial/Zoomer potshot: I'm two years older than Linus
I'm not sure your intuition is correct. Sure the supply of work isn't infinite but it does increase when productivity goes up.
Look at a website designer, in the early 90s you were writing HTML and CSS by hand, drawing icons with crappy editors, etc, etc.
Now, you've got crazy libraries and full-fledged website builders, I'm guessing a modern web designer is MUCH more productive.
The result? There's waaay more website designer jobs out there, that's partially because the Internet is bigger, but also because you get way more value for your cash buying a website designer now.
Some of the same will be happening with software dev. Sure, some companies that doesn't see any need to do more than they're currently doing may cut staff, but a lot of other companies will realize that the software project/product they were thinking of is now viable.
I live in an urban area and they are all urban kids (I grew up with farm kids). Not a single one of them can see the American flag without making a derogatory comment. They automatically look down on folks wearing any type of red/white/blue or patriotic clothing or accessories.
I'm guessing that folks using the US flag as an accessory are generally pushing a fairly specific political belief.
I'm in Canada and a bunch of a-hole truckers and their followers blockaded the Capital and border crossings to try and blackmail the rest of the country. And of course they flew Canadian flags everywhere to pretend like they were being patriotic.
I love my country and my flag, but if I see some truck driving around with a Canadian flag I know it's probably some Fox-News watching Trump fanboy who was trying to extort the rest of the country which is pretty damn un-Canadian to me.
I asked them once "In terms of our political parties, who provided the greatest opposition to the Civil Rights era marches and the Civil Rights Act itself?" Their answer "Republicans of course!".
And they were right of course! (well kinda right anyway)
The real divide was the former Confederacy vs the rest of the country. Because the South was Democratic there were a lot more D in opposition than R.
But it was a Democratic President who pushed it. But if you look among legislators in the former Confederacy, Republicans were more likely to oppose it. And similarly outside, Republicans were more likely to oppose it.
So saying Republicans were more opposed isn't really wrong.
I asked them which state probably had the most slaves. Their answer "Texas, of course!"
That feels more like trivia, particularly considering the different populations at the time.
I asked them "What is inflation" they answered "Prices going up". I asked what causes it and they said "Greedy corporations".
To be fair, economists struggle with that too.
I asked them how the Jews got to Israel and they answered "They took it away from the Arabs after WW2"
Not entirely wrong. Not that the Jews sitting around in post-WWII refugee camps had many other good options.
I asked them "Did the Jews buy any of their land or live there before as far as you know?" Answer "No, they were invaders".
From the local's perspective, they kinda were invaders.
I asked if the arabs fought for the Axis or the Allies (had to explain what that meant) they said "Allies".
I asked about Freedom of Speech and they are mostly hostile "Free speech is used to bully minorities by old white men." I asked them what percentage they think old white guys are notably racist. Answer "99%". Okay what about Sexist? "95%". I asked how many are pedophiles. They answer "probably at least 50%" I asked if healthcare and education should be free. "Absolutely" I asked who should pay for it "Rich people." I asked how. "Income taxes and seizure of their assets" I asked if rich folks were better or worse than drug dealers "About the same"
At that point they're probably just screwing with you.
So, these days we skate and I don't talk to them about politics, history, or anything that would upset their fragile (and completely wrong) view of reality.
Just curious, do you think the COVID vaccine saved lives? Do you believe in AGW? Do you think Trump won in 2020?
Because I can find a lot of people on the right who espouse some pretty nutty beliefs on those topics, and they aren't the equivalent of the kids skateboarding, they're literally the leaders of the GOP and the associated media outlets.
That you think Collin Kaepernick was expecting and willing to lose a lot,
It's fairly well established that he had contract offers contingent on him ceasing his protest, so yeah, he clearly demonstrated that he was willing to sacrifice a significant portion of his career earnings for his protest.
or that he actually did, is laughable.
He did well with Nike, possibly better than he would have done never having protested though NFL QB salaries are pretty good so it's hard to say.
But it's pretty ridiculous to assume he anticipated a huge endorsement deal when he started his protest.
It really calls your entire statement into question.
It's fine to disagree with his protest.
But pretending that he wasn't willing to sacrifice a lot? That's pretty disgusting.
You know those idiots who stormed the US Capitol on Jan 6th? They were far right fascists who were trying to overthrow the US Democracy and murder the Vice President and they deserve long prison sentences.
But I won't deny they were willing to risk a lot for their insurrection.
Er what? Staging a political protest at a workplace should be a common sense thing NOT to do as an employee. I do not know why that should be considered "soul destroying". If the employees wanted to express themselves outside the workplace, they are free to do so.
Common sense not to do if you expect to keep your job.
I don't know what these folk expected, but some protesters are actually willing to sacrifice a lot as part of their protests. If they knew the cost of their protest I have some respect for that.
Israel will never give that land back via negotiation. I'm stating bald fact.
The problem is that there's currently a lot of Palestinians currently living on that land that Israel.
They know their long-term survival depends on a more-or-less ethnically and culturally monolithic state with defensible borders, and they'll do what they need to, to get that.
The best defended borders are border without enemies on the other side.
Israel's issue isn't that they need to take all the land "from the river to the sea" in order to have a defensible state. The issue is the conquest of land is really tempting (precisely the reason it's illegal) and Israel has found itself occupying a lot of land that a portion of their population really wants to keep.
The Settlers have figured out that all they need to do is establish a Settlement, grow it big enough, and it's no longer politically viable for a future government to dismantle it, better yet if the current government supports the plan.
Put those Settlements in the right place and a contiguous Palestinian state is no longer possible meaning an ethnically cleansed* Greater Israel is the inevitable endgame.
* Israel has an Arab minority with whom they get along with reasonably well, but I don't see non-citizen Palestinians being able to join that club.
The Feds are trying to confiscate a large part of TikTok's business by a forced sale to American businessmen. I gather this is because TikTok appears to be successful, whereas ex-Twitter and Pravda Social are going down in flames.
It's not a ban and was never intended to be a ban. It's a direct threat based on, "nice company you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it."
You really think they care that much about that tiny bit of cash?
The real reason is that the Feds (and legislators) are cluing into how powerful AI and analytics are and they're scared over what China is doing with the giant masses of data it's collecting from TikTok.
What kinda stuff goes viral? How does info spread through networks? What's spreading right now? Legislator X is authoring a bill that touches our interests, what do we know about that legislator in specific?
For a country looking to meddle in Western politics, as China definitely is, a dataset like TikTok is an extremely powerful tool.
LLMs cannot do it. Hallucination is baked-in.
LLMs alone definitely can't do it. LLMs, however, seem (to me, speaking for myself as an ML developer) to be a very likely component in an actual AI. Which, to be clear, is why I use "ML" instead of "AI", as we don't have AI yet. It's going to take other brainlike mechanisms to supervise the hugely flawed knowledge assembly that LLMs generate before we even have a chance to get there. Again, IMO.
I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. No sign of that, though.
Free the hostages. Then you can start talking about the IDF.
This. Exactly.
All the nonsense of inventing reasons to cry "war crimes" meanwhile terrorists are hiding in (or under) schools, hospitals, homes and using women and children as human shields. Let's not forget they recruit children to fight in the first place and then add those same child fighters to the count of children killed in the conflict.
If you were fighting a war against a technologically superior opponent I'm pretty sure you'd do all those things as well with the possible exception of recruiting children.
And it's a little unclear how widespread that is, certainly, children wanting to join the fight happens in every big conflict. The question is are they being actively recruited or just not turned away.
There certainly is an information war going though - one where idiots (and I don't call names lightly) literally are believing propaganda coming from a well-known terrorist group who openly calls for the eradication of Israel and all Jews, teaches their children exactly that in school, who also massacred ~1200 people and took 200+ hostages then launched tens of thousands of unaimed rockets at Israel. These are the people idiots keep defending because they cherry pick a data point out of a war.
The only thing worse than an armchair general is an armchair trench soldier. Might as well hand out demerits for not having polished boots while they're at it.
It's true Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of Israel, but I don't think Likud's is much better.
Not saying that Hamas isn't a horrific organization, but Palestinians are being systematically repressed and forced off of their land. Really nasty extremists are a very predictable outcome of that process.
I'll be impressed when one of these ML engines is sophisticated enough to be able to say "I don't know" instead of just making up nonsense by stacking probabilistic sequences; also it needs to be able tell fake news from real news. Although there's an entire swath of humans who can't do that, so it'll be a while I guess. That whole "reality has a liberal bias" truism ought to be a prime training area.
While I certainly understand that the Internet and its various social media cesspools are the most readily available training ground(s), it sure leans into the "artificial stupid" thing.
Ok I didn't read all of that, but the claim that Israel "deliberately" let Qatar fund Hamas to "keep it alive" is absurd, as if it 1) needed more money or 2) the Israelis wanted to keep them alive. Where is the evidence for that conspiracy theory?
CNN, New York Times, The Times of Israel, etc, etc.
I think they are simply the useful idiots for a PR-aware terrorist group. Netanyahu is a soldier turned politician desperate to avoid jail for corruption during his previous terms. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization holding the entirely of Gaza hostage and deliberately killing as many Palestinians as Israelis. Israel has to impose operational security to protect its soldiers while Hamas controls the information given to the media. All of these things are true.
There's other factors to consider as well:
- Israel (Natanyahu) deliberately allowed Qatar to smuggle cash into Gaza in order to keep Hamas strong. Not strong enough to carry out the Oct 7th attack, but strong enough to keep lobbing rockets and form a suitable villain.
- Israel has been blocking basic aid such as food from getting into Gaza. Deliberate famine is hardly "upholding the rules of war".
- What do you think "operational security" in Gaza is? A permanent Israeli army presence with the steady flow of casualties on both sides that entails?
Israel must demonstrate that the terrorist tactic of building offensive military capabilities underneath nominally protected sites legally voids that very same protection and transforms them back into valid targets. Israel must demonstrate that the terrorist tactic of deliberately hiding offensive weapons underneath soft populations fails and results only in deaths for the subjugated soft populations - like the Palestinians that Hamas murders the same as their declared enemies. The alternative is that Hamas and every other terrorist group will always hide all of their weapons under soft populations and total deaths increase in every future conflict. Those that Hamas and other terrorists start included, giving them free reign to attack while their PR propaganda dominates. I hope that the protestors simply do not understand this.
Those dead Palestinian civilians are actually part of Hamas's plan.
The old equation was that Arab states would normalize ties with Israel when the Palestinian issue was settled, then in 2017 a normalization process without the Palestinians was started. This would obviously remove a lot of leverage from the Palestinians.
A major objective of the October 7th attack was to was to create a disproportionate Israeli response that would inflame the Arab world and stop the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab states. Given how the war has gone with even Western partners starting to turn on Israel I'd say Hamas is probably saying "mission accomplished".
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
