"why (is) the U.S. government is so invested in the issue?"

Claiming it's 'perhaps' about the US wanting power to project US culture...as a way to deflect from Canada ACTUALLY OPENLY AND CLEARLY DOING THAT is propaganda-judo at Iraqi-information-minister level.

Even *asking* the question is hilariously obvious. So Canada is entitled to use its streaming channels to promulgate Brand Canada (and their obligatory Francophone appendix, always...) but the US is quasi imperialist - not for demanding the right to do so, just interfering with Canada's 'right' to do so.

And offering some sappy Ontario postdoc as the "quoted expert" instead of, say, an actual Canadian gov't official to defend their overt policy is even funnier.

And before the nabobs come chattering into the conversation, yes, OF COURSE the US promotes itself in media and indeed that is soft-power, but let's be clear here that the US isn't asking for the right to do so, just that Canada NOT do so. And oh, when's the last time you saw the majority of US media (incl Hollywood, to look at the bastion of American cultural power) saying /nice/ things about the US?

Except:
A) we are talking about sea temps 10m below the surface across a global data set. Some Enlightenment polymaths taking readings with their home made thermometers in Europe wouldn't impact that data set at all.
B) "guestimates" would be hilarious to include in a conclusion being reached based on HUNDREDTHS of a degree (0.10 vs 0.09)

My supposition would be this is modem data only, eg since the 1990s MAYBE.

We are not. Sorry. You are fucked and you did it yourself by voting us down this path with every tiny decision you make supporting it (except for that petition against a local data center that lets you pat yourself on the back despite you actually doing 100s of bad actions.)

For starters, we do not know what to address in a rapidly changing landscape. I can tell you that CAPTCHA and plumbing are tasks AI can't do...

You have kids who can't think or learn backed up by parents who don't even know how to be decent parents. The lack of basic skills or poor level of knowledge is already shocking but we are not failing enough of them before they get to me and I'm still failing more of them than ever. No real changes; no evolutionary change, just a sick culture and environment. The GRADE is the sole focus not subject mastery; credential over credibility. USA culture has become vapid on all fronts; cheating is acceptable as voting for a pedo/rapist felon president/dictator (you can SAY one thing but DO the opposite; no problem. hypocrisy seems to have become a virtue.)

You can't MAKE somebody learn outside of really basic things. Studies show using the stick harms problem solving abilities; what little exists in the 1st place. Problem solving is what the AI can't do at all, it only adapts answers and development thinking skills requires practice. The attention and mental energy required for difficult new lessons is not there in enough quantity to keep pace with past expectations. It was bad enough before trying to motivate students when they are flooded with motivators draining their dopamine. In college, just by the nature of being there in the first place precludes most the hurdles faced by teachers! (gradually as the masses enter the system this shifts.)

Blame the teachers/professors for everything and the schools...because that is literally one of main causes of the decline! Way to go! Externalize all YOUR problems like an MBA and now you too have fucked up your supply chain. The school has to compensate for everything wrong, including parenting your brats for you. If the students fail it must never be their fault. Not your perfect snowflake! This is the background problem festering for years before ChatGPT which couldn't have come at a worse time. These students don't study or do their homework (practice) except the slightly lower number of diligent disciplined students. Millennials were a problem until they grew up and realized more effort was required in their late 20s but they were AI free during their bad years...(we had workshops on their very real attitude problems.)

The great student of the past will continue to succeed despite the bad conditions; we couldn't transform the majority into becoming those disciplined students with generations of attempts, some emulation was possible. The amount of discipline required in today's environment is insane. Then you have places forcing AI use despite studies showing it harms already skilled thinkers.

I can tell you there is a mass depression over the situation in my circles. Some are trying to find solutions, but with so many variables and rapid change in the last few years it's been fruitless in the short term. Wait for things to settle and see what works is the general attitude. Humanity has always had troubles adapting new tech responsibly, bad applications come faster than wisdom does -- we're moving too quickly.

some background: https://youtu.be/BRD2EkhZZRI

Most the web was already slop for SEO or marketing.

I would think the quality of the HTML would improve since HTML generation software often writes poor quality HTML that is just good enough to work in Chrome. The frameworks out there violate tons of things and accessibility is going back down hill again. We have HTML giving in to all the invented html elements and standardizing common violations which became worse once we standardized error handling to the point people engineered around the error handling... almost instead of the specification. One of the reasons I stopped working (volunteer) on the spec (aside from w3 politics when they took it over and ruined/"normalized" the documentation.)

It's an engineering challenge but not that practical because purposeful design won at the speed task with the invention of the wheel. Most every narrow use case has a better solution than humans many broader ones as well. Even reasoning in a narrow scope is now likely best done by an AI (or will be) if it is repetitive enough to have the overwhelming amount of training data (something humans do way better at, finding a good heuristic from minimal data and applying unrelated data well.)

Fast is also an easier and a different problem from slow less controlled environments; such as navigating a child's bedroom avoiding lego being embedded in your foot or handling unsure footing when one of those toy mines finds it's way under foot.

Linkedin (like Facebook) has evolved to one of those sites that it feels like the digital equivalent of shopping a wet-market in Wuhan.

On the one hand, ai is indeed getting better at writing banal fluff pieces that fill the Internet.

On the other, human writing is growing so awful in both subject and quality (this morning's bbc contains an article where one of their interns sprightly explains she's been able to train her self to wake without an alarm clock, golly!) that little of value is being supplanted.

Hell, I expect an ai editor of slashdot would post fewer dupes and likely be better at summarizing the point rather than cnp'ing whole 1000-word articles for the front page.

I can't see any point to this other than providing LinkedIn ai training data.

  I *want* ai to keep clearly sounding like fucking ai (although, being honest, I can't think of a single post on LinkedIn that didn't sound like it was written by a robot, ever).

Oh, so you don't have kids.
Parents don't get the luxury of "giving up" because it's too much work that might be wasted anyway.

I don't disagree with you that they probably WILL see stuff on the internet but... the reality is that most kids are what ~8bn people would call normal and aside from "your team" pushing trans propaganda like this, will NEVER SEEK IT OUT because most people find it gross. So while they absolutely will see sexual subjects on the web, likely it's normalizing, not degenerate. Which is why the trans-propaganda campaign is working so hard, it's an uphill fight against young people's normal inclinations, you need to 'get them while they're young' to try to move the frame of acceptability. We see it, we understand it, and we (& they) reject it.

Sorry for your loss. Hey, at least you have apparently legions of political sheep willing to sacrifice their children for your ideology.

Your opinion has been filed appropriately.

Insofar as you're being honest about being a libertarian, I genuinely apologize.

Hairsplitting semantics and pretending not to understand idiom are such standard leftist tactics, I admit, I presumed.

To your point, then: Auschwitz was legal, according to German Criminal Codes in 1942. So... to you, not "murder"? Yes, I think this is a stupid point to make and a stupid argument, but you seemed to assert a narrowly-defined concept of murder, just seeing how far you're willing to go? If you are consistent, and affirm that being legal, the Holocaust wasn't murder, I guess you ... win? I would absolutely concede the point.

Do you believe children should be exposed in any way to adult sexuality?
Particularly hypersexualized dancers with sexually suggestive names, acts, gestures, themes?

The fact that you're even asking suggests you're either
- deeply disingenuous or
- a pedo yourself

The answer, in case you're searching for it? It's NO. Just LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE. They don't need to be groomed, thanks.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new...

"....The performer in drag was none other than the president of the PTA at P.S. 96., Frankie Quinones. Video shot by Morales shows him twirling and gyrating to a song by '80s Puerto Rican performer Iris Chacon.

On an event flyer, the drag show was only billed as a âoeSpecial Surprise Performance!â

Morales questioned what organizers were thinking.

âoeHe got on all fours on the choir stand, he laid on his back, raised his legs, opened his legs wide open. What made you in your head think that was appropriate for elementary school students?â Morales said."

As somebody once said, "If I won $30 million, I'd spend half of it on hookers and coke. The rest, I'd just waste".

"We took on this high-risk, high-reward challenge and are proud of the milestones we reached along the way," [Katalyst CEO Ghonhee Lee] said in a statement. "We have already learned a tremendous amount."

I'd be delighted to learn a tremendous amount from NASA, and I'd be prepared to offer them my willingness to learn for maybe 10% of the $30 million they paid Katalyst.

A deal like that...how can NASA say no? I will wait with relaxed confidence by my desktop communications centre for their response to my generous offer.

...that a malignant narcissistic sociopath would give a shit about people's mental health and wellbeing?

I didn't care what adults do to/with each other, not even faintly but I draw the line at degeneracy with children and kinks that involve them. Even (shudder) with their parents enthusiastic consent.

If it's just about representation and being seen, why aren't they lobbying to dance in front of the elderly?