"i ant reading all that. im happy for you tho. or sorry that happened"

hey if you want to keep Prop 13 around go for it, but then let's not claim you or any of those homeowners believe in a "housing market" becuase it's not at that point so all your Prop 13 supports better stop nimby-ing it up over there and blocking housing developments and other works projects becuase, well, fuck you.

Aww your homes value skyrocketed in the past 30 years and now your taxes are twwoooooo high?!?! Well sorry thats how fucking markets work. Take your big fat house payment and move on, it's what someone would have to do in every other state in this country in that situation. Take your million dollars and retire and let the housing go to people who can afford it.

Also any prop 13 people have lived in the state for decades and voted for these things.

I didn't need the history lesson. Doesn't matter how it came to be, some laws go in and the outcomes are unforseen and bad. Bad laws are bad, we should kill bad laws and have good laws. Prop 13 is bad law. Or if you want to keep it I better not hear a peep about blocking public housing or dense development anymore.

Yeah that's a problem, the liability still has to be on the officer that those words are their words, however they got on the page. The AI getting it wrong is you getting it wrong.

Yeah I am curious about that too. If they do then this is probably good. But that leads to my next question, are police body cam logs not normally transcribed unless they need to be? Maybe if this allows them all to be transcribed, even if not as rigorous as human transcription might that be a good thing?

And this is why we can't have nice things, Prop 13 and other laws are definitely share in the reasons it has the housing crisis it does and to me is the plurality of California's problems, economically and politically, but people as you said are going to flip their top while digging themselves in a deeper hole.

Let me rephrase it this then maybe, it "shouldn't be a lot" for a state like California. Hell, they should be able to spend a bit more than that. The thing with spending like this is that it's not just money with no return, having plenty of reliable electricity and full EV infrastructure could very well produce well more than $20B in economic growth over those 10 years. If they can do something about the housing of course...

This honestly sounds like a good use case for something like a language model? If you are going to be charged in any way it should obviously be the actual audio used as reference and any AI transcription should be labelled as such with a link to said video, if the AI transcription is wrong somehow and used for a charge and the actual audio is exonerating, that's a pretty easy slam dunk.

I'd also be interested to see how the error rate compared to the existing way of doing things which, if it is in fact the officers themselves that have to do it I imagine could be pretty close, we don't have a perfect system already I imagine.

At the same time shouldn't this be an easy task to tune an "AI" towards with a focus on accuracy and erring on the side of noting where it couldn't understand something rather than making it up? I mean what are all these AI people working on if it can't do this job extremely reliably?

Universe where RAM is one giant ram stick they keep adding 640K chips.

"Only 640k more is all we'll ever need.... Only 640k more...."

California has a GDP of $3.9T and the state budget is $295B. Seems like a fair cost for what you get and in reality is closer to $2B a year over 10 years.

The Marsh case if I understand it correctly did in fact make that distinction, since in this case the "public streets" were "owned" by the company is where the case hinged on. The court decided since in this case the streets were considered public spaced even if a company in fact had private control over them. It was a unique distinction in the particulars.

I believe the judges in the ruling in fact made that distinction, so I can't go into my local pet store and place pamphlets for my religion on the store shelves and then claim freedom of speech when the store owner takes them down and asks me to leave. If you can show me precedent on that from another case, be happy to look it over.

That why we don't base Con Law on corporate slogans. YouTube has a TOS, me posting video there means I am the behest of those terms. I can always roll my own server and serve whatever video I want. Some people (not you) believe freedom of speech means you have a "right" to the largest audiences when that is not in fact the case.

And it's 2024, girls love nerdy stuff like tactical board games, D&D and video games now. I've seen girls that like 40K miniatures.

Honestly, compared to when I was a geeky teenager kids today have it easier with finding common hobbies and interests.

What industry group owns those terms? My point is no-one does, even this LED display manufacturer has their own explanation for it which doesn't comport with that.

https://www.unilumin.com/blog/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Google's abandoned modular phone concept.

The slick concept combined with the utter economic impracticality made it very cool. Be interested if someone could actually make it succeed, regardless of if it's a good idea or now

Different question:

A girl who knows anything about tech might in fact find it very cool that a jewelry grade diamond came out of a complex and impressive industrial process. If they are socially conscious they know about the diamond trade problems and DeBeers and don't want to support that.

A woman who doesn't find your trains "cool" may still find appeal in your passion for it, your attitude around your hobby tends to be more attractive to people than the thing itself.

Marsh is sorta specific though as it is in the context of a "company town"

Pretty sure outside that that if Marsh was placing religious texts inside say, a private store, the store owner is well within rights to remove it.

What I said

and you say

Please explain how you got from A to B please.

Sure. Now write a law than discriminates between "legitimate arguments of a position in order to suppress real concerns" and those that do not without any false positives.

Write a law that defines what being "civil" is without false positives or negatives or making it completely subjective.

Sure, but which ones? Old ones from the 16th century? New ones the kids just came up with? What If I am using in a historical analysis prerspective?

You see how this is tricky?

I think once you have the government defining the exacts of speech, well, that action alone is good or bad is going to cause a chilling effect and if you take away a platform (or publisher, whatever, your definition makes everyone neither) liability protections then they are just going to restrict speech even more.

I think we both know there are women in who the value of the ring is not what it's made of but the dollar signs behind it.