dirk was ambiguous when s/he referred to "foreign power companies" when they actually supply equipment, not power. But s/he subsequently clarified things by mentioning twice that they supply equipment.
So, who's the "fucking idiot?"
That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And I'm dismissing all of your claims.
I stand by what I wrote. There is not, and never was, any GoFundMe campaign to support Lindsay Clancy. There was one for her husband (started by another family member) and one for her parents (started by a TikTok creator.)
The protestors in pink (and others) are not supporting what Lindsay Clancy did. They're asking for recognition of maternal mental illness as a factor in her case, and drawing attention to the lack of support Lindsay received when she was ill. They are mothers, grandmothers, nurses, and others, and are not aligned with any particular political party.
Companies should, in general, avoid keeping any user data one second longer than they legitimately need it. Data should be viewed as a liability more than an asset, and every company that achieves significant scale with user data soon realizes this, though some take longer than others to learn the lesson.
The reason it's a liability is because it exposes the company to an endless stream of warrants and subpoenas, and contrary to popular belief, the government does not pay for that data. In some cases the government might pay a portion of the expenses the company incurs in responding, but it's always still a net loss, and most of the time the government just shows up with a court order and says "Hand it over or be held in contempt of court". What makes it even worse is if companies actually want to be good stewards of the data and not hand over more than they should, they'll often get overly-broad requests and then have to go to court to fight to narrow or quash the requests.
This all gets very expensive. It's just a cost of doing business... but it's a cost that can be avoided if you don't have and can't get the data.
Encrypt everything, and arrange to destroy the keys when you no longer need the data is the best way to do it, too. Scrubbing large databases quickly and effectively is hard. Deleting a set of AES keys is a lot easier. This also means that you can focus your internal access controls on controlling which systems and employees can get the keys.
I'd encourage Ring to find ways to close the window of access even more.
Next up will be a "national emergency" to prevent or disallow the results of the general election.
Tell me again how badly America needs to pass the SAVE Act.
No, no. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Doubling down with long-TDS worked out great. I think Democrats should triple down next time.
That'll really teach 'em.
And pay no attention to those screaming at you for tossing the ball back through your own goalposts. They're just jealous.
What the hell does any of this even mean?
I have a Tesla Model Y which has (supervised) FSD, but I've never had to intervene critically and it's been thousands of miles. You realize I just get in the car enter an address and it goes there parking-spot to parking-spot -- zero intervention of any kind in all kinds of traffic -- it handles roundabouts that humans have trouble with. Yet nobody who doesn't actually have Tesla FSD believes it works. Nothing we can do or say makes you guys believe it really and truly works. We can show all the stats
To claim that the gap to level 5 is "astronomical" is plain wrong. If Tesla removes the "supervised" label from their FSD
The value gap is indeed astronomical as I stated. Self driving is a long tail problem. Technical progression along the tail doesn't have much effect on the underlying value proposition.
In a Tesla model-y a licensed driver is required to sit in the drivers seat with their hand on the wheel. The driver is required at all times to retain full situational awareness and be ready at a moments notice to intervene. A Tesla model-y can't pick you up from work. It can't run errands for you. It can't be sent off to people who you want to be transported in it.
A level 5 vehicle doesn't need a licensed driver to operate. It doesn't even need a single human being to be present inside of it. It doesn't require any passenger to be paying any attention to anything. During a commute to work the vehicle can be used as a mobile office. When the passenger needs to return it can pick them up without care for parking or where they were originally dropped off.
Waymo only works in specific areas and is professionally managed and monitored.
A country full of level 5 vehicles is one in which the relationship between people and vehicles is fundamentally altered and with it society. Millions of professional drivers are rendered obsolete. Nobody pays for parking. Everyone expects to be able to send their vehicles out to run errands and gather shit for them. Insurance and licensing is severely disrupted. Traffic engineering is dramatically changed as automation enables what was once infeasible. The follow on effects of economically feasible level 5 vehicles is enormous.... just getting 90% of the way there. 95%... 99% or 99.9% doesn't translate into substantive value. You actually have to deliver in full for the technology to actually matter.
You're in a different discussion altogether. Technology definitely can cause job-loss. The left and the right both recognize that.
What's being discussed here is whether AI and automation cause job-loss. backslashdot apparently thinks they don't, and I disagree.
This isn't the text of the study but it at least provides useful details instead of the words "statistically significant" followed by meaningless percentages.
Lindsay Clancy kills 3 of her kids. Democrats gave her over a million dollars.
I call Bullshit with a capital "B." Democrats did not give Lindsay Clancy a million dollars. What did happen was that a GoFundMe campaign raised over $1 million for her husband. Ditto for a GoFundMe page for Lindsay's parents, for relocation and living expenses. You can't identify the political orientation of the donors. And per GoFundMe's rules, none of that money can be used for Lindsay's defense. But it is being used by her family for their expenses related to the charges and the trial. Good luck finding work, or even finding time to work, when a family member commits a crime that you had nothing to do with. I deplore Lindsay's alleged crimes, but I can understand people wanting to support her family.
Further, actually having at least one dosimeter on board when they are so cheap, light, and compact would go a long way to actually showing what exposures happen, but that would simply create liabilities so it doesnâ(TM)t happen.
It can always be crowd sourced using an app on ordinary cell phones so long as they are stored in the dark or tape is used to cover the camera.
Meaningfully shielding entire (or I guess at least the upper half of) airplane would also make em so much heavier that they'd inevitably end up slower (particularly in climb), which'd in turn mean you'd spend longer time exposed to the radiation and eat into the benefit and further make the boondoggle even more expensive.
You can always use fuel as a radiation shield. Instead of keeping it all in the wings have some of it sloshing around above the cabin.
It's dumb to try to stifle it when it's just developing. For one thing, AI can't take anyone's job. Increasing production has never in history resulted in job loss.
The one thing I'll give Billy credit for is avoidance of this same inductive trap:
"Another reason people underestimate AI is that analogies to the effects of past innovations are misleading. We have no experience with a technology that can be adopted quickly or that can think and move like a human. "
Think about it, cars are already capable of autonomous driving
There has never been even a single level 5 self driving car that has ever existed. The difference in value (and associated disruption) between cars that can mostly drive themselves and cars that can fully drive themselves is astronomical.
A few points:
1) maybe you didn't follow my argument: that's why it's farcical to believe that these companies are wasting money buying/destroying them when they are digitally available. Why would they waste $$ they don't have to?
2) FWIW, that's the 1901 edition, the 1915 3rd ed was (as the author says) largely rewritten with updated information not available for the 1901.
3) Do you realize your comment is literally justifying scanning and preserving books that aren't yet available?
Isn't there a clear bright line of liability here?
If the hugging face event cost hugging face (hypothetically) $250,000 to fix, how is the ai creator not instantly on the hook for a multiple of those damages?
It feels like we should quickly establish say a 10x multiplier as standard penalty for ai caused damages.
I know it's a shitty post facto tool and yes, it has failed plenty of times, but product liability is a well-precedented path (ie no new law approach has to be created) to compelling corporate responsibility. If this were the case, even a trillion dollar market value would feel shallow compared to potential liabilities.
I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!
