Shooting down each other's drones because nobody is competent enough for coordination is, technically, "working together in an unprecedented fashion". So there is that.

Maybe or maybe not. It still counts if the crew dies after they land due to an air leak though.

Also China is more inclined to overlook little things like safety to reach a goal.

It must be DEI right? Because repeated budget cuts and shifting goals with every administration is not the most sensible answer.

[sarcasm]What are you talking about? He has kept every promise he ever made. For example look how faithful has been to his wives. Also he has always paid his bills and never failed to pay contractors daring them to sue him in court. Lastly, that bigly wall would have never been built without him.[/sarcasm]

It wouldn't be news if you looked at their terms of service -- which you should. The ToS explicitly say they use a combination of automated systems, human review, and reports to identify and investigate violations of their usage terms, including violence, abuse, fraud, impersonation, disinformation, foreign influence campaigns , abusive sexual content, and academic dishonesty. This includes "anonymous" sessions that are saved for a minimum of 30 days. You have no expectation of privacy from the provider's compliance teams.

This is *absolutely* standard among the major online players. So why not use a local AI workstation with a couple of big-ass GPU cards in it to run the campaign? That's what they *should* have done. But the major online players like ChatGPT and Claude are much better at realistic content generation than the widely available local models you can run.

What they should have done is design and run the compaign on a local AI workstation, and used the local workstation to generate prompts they could feed into burner accounts on public services like ChatGPT and Claude. But they got lazy and ran the *whole* operation in ChatGPT, right in plain fiew of the OpenAI compliance teams the ToS they evidently didn't read would have told them were there. They even did *performance reviews* in the same account.

Remember folks, these "spooks" are just mid-level paper-pushers in an opaque communist bureacuracy. You can never discount inertia in such an environment. Because this was something new, they might even have had trouble getting the purchase of some high end GPUs approved.

The main issue I see with AI generating code is that it does not understand details, and details matter. It relies heavily on existing code repositories that the model can access. That means the code it might generate has been done already. New and novel code may not be possible. The last time I used AI to generate python code, it did not work. On the surface the code looked right; however, it failed as it used "array(i)" to call a value in an array instead of "array[i]" which is a small but important difference.

So instead of providing evidence, all you have is insults.

1) What source is required? The federal government owns over 45% of land in CA. That is easily googled. The fact of the matter is you didn’t do even that. 2) You stated that red states are building faster. When challenged for the truth of that statement, you reference a webpage that does not say that. Given your prior history of misleading statements, I am not going to give you the doubt of ignorance; intentionally misleading seems to be your modus operandi.

Asking you to actually prove your premises seems to have triggered you. Is that because you have either done zero research or is it that it does not fit your narrative so it cannot be true in your world?

There is a need for additional device authentication. An iPod Touch seems to be an expensive solution to that. The last ones sold for $200 at retail. Sure used ones are cheaper but supply is unreliable. A $25-90 Yubikey seems more practical.

Ford does value engineering to do things like save $2 on the wiring harness for wing mirrors on trucks that cost $50k but don't have the $300 option for e.g. power folding mirrors (which get the wiring harness that costs $2 more). You'd think the inventory management costs alone would make this a stupid idea, but apparently not. $15 on $1000 is a much larger percentage and much easier to imagine.

Conspiracy people will simply say this was just a cover-up and that Zena Cardman was the pregnant one. If no baby materializes, they will say she came back to have an abortion (and suggest she be jailed or executed for it).

Whatever you think of their honesty, the phrase has a single meaning, which is "we're not going to do it" with the additional pretty obvious inference "because it is unethical".

Your post isn't merely pedantry, it's just willful denial of what ultimately is a very clear and unambiguous statement.

I'd like to be more optimistic; but I'm not sure that would be the outcome. It's not like we actually expect operating under actual legal guidance (indeed, we come up with insulting nonsense like standards for 'qualified immunity' that basically let you off unless it's exceptionally obvious that you are operating against well established practice; and commonly just substitute things like 'acted according to policy and training' for questions of whether the policy and training reflect legal practice or not when it comes to even the excessive force cases that actually make it to trial.

And, if there's anything LLMs seem to be good at, it's generating results that look pretty plausible; so if you combine high plausibility narrative generation, a veneer of technological objectivity, and the downright servile deference to the official narrative, it would probably be even easier to beat the rap than it is now; when you can at least sometimes put the spotlight on someone clearly and distastefully letting their motives show or acting irrationally.

I don't hate Trump. I pity him. No matter how much shit he slaps his name on, it won't fill the hole is daddy left in him. But people that damaged shouldn't be let anywhere near power.

It's not helpful to describe software as "the right way" or "the wrong way."

Instead, focus on finding "something that works" and avoiding "things that don't work" (and of course, "working" can include the requirement of code being readable, flexible, etc). There is never exactly "one right way." There are always several ways that work and are fine.