First, I'm sure there's lots of Open Source being used in Google's implementation - just not where we can see.
There is a speech recognizer from CMU that might be a good starting point. I haven't heard about plain-language software, though. There is additional rocket science to be done. Not insurmountable given things we've already done.
Training with millions of people? Actually, that's the part that community development is good at.
yes I have.
And I don't find them trustworthy. Trillions of dollars are at stake in keeping that number low due to COLA implications. It's not a wonky neutral number- it's a highly politicized number.
I remember the antitrust trial of the 90s well. Yes, the judge said they should be broken up. The Bush took office and the whole matter was dropped. Nothing happened to them. Nothing's ever happened to them in the US.
The only place they've had any trouble is over in Europe. That means they can do whatever they want to American customers, they just have to watch themselves in the EU market. It's not at all unusual for companies to have different products for different markets and treat customers in different markets differently.
I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:
If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.
There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.
That's a really good point. This service sure isn't going to throw someone off for being attacked too much. I'll ask someone at Google to expedite the process.
Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.
With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.
The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.
Some people call that "democracy.
Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?
You've left no room for bushes and grasses.
Bushes and grasses produce a lot of oxygen .
but it's not just oxygen production.
Offsetting use of a car for a year requires 5,000 pounds of woody material per year (not pure carbon he he but it is a lot of carbon).
Grass, bushes and algae do not lock up nearly as much carbon. Most of their carbon returns quickly to the environment as they are consumed and their smaller less sturdy bits rot quickly.
"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)