They've already dealt with this. If you read the fine print on these agreements, many or most of the recent ones say that the company has the option of rolling up any "substantially similar" arbitration cases into a single mass arbitration. (Which as usual, is decided by a person whose paycheck ultimately depends on the business of that same company.)
Why 2003? Let's see if you can figure this one out.
Hint: SCO
Also, are you familiar with events like:
- Steve Balmer taking a trip to Munich (back in 2003)
- Ken Brown's report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
- Names like Darl McBride, Laura DiDio, Maureen O'Gara?
If you were, then you would be able to understand why today Linux is allowed to be used in corporate settings, but only via the text console, never on the desktop.
It might be more productive to have third party labs document PFAS contamination of foods and then file a class action suit over the contamination.
Sorry. When you signed up for that discount card a few years ago, you agreed to individual binding arbitration only.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
...What if AI eventually leads us to agents of average human intelligence?
Then all the average humans are out of work. And there probably isn't enough need for above-average intelligence humans to keep all that many working.
The economy, as we currently run it, ceases to function when unemployment exceeds 50%.
Sometimes it just needs a spark. It was six years from Attention to the first disappointing ChatGPT, but only 3 years from first ChatGPT to Mythos.
It was 57 years from Eliza to ChatGPT.
What the fuck is a Oneplus or Oppo?
Let's figure it out together:
test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:5:14: error: expected expression before ';' token
5 | int x = 1+;
Apparently, Oneplus is a syntax error.
Without support, T-Mobile probably won't be entitled to patch any of the inevitable future critical security vulnerabilities found in VMware's software.
He badly needs a success. Something he can show to the public and the boss man as a win. This may be it.
Given the recent track record of lunar probes crashing and/or landing ass side up, the odds of success for this rush job are not good.
anti-DEI police of the current Administration
That DEI enforcement group seems to be asleep on the job. The current administration has appointed numerous women* to important positions.
*Biological women, that is. Sorry about the rest of you guys. I guess you are going to have to do a better job tucking.
Are you sure about that "biological" thing? Most of them look like Stepford Wives.
Ballots? No. Just do it.
Don't worry. The current regime has plan in place to simply not deliver mailed ballots in states that have any chance of going against your desired outcome.
To paraphrase the apocryphal Stalin: Altering one ballot is a felony. Shitcanning a million ballots is a statistic.
I don't think "continuous" means what you think it means. The reason you can do this is because the models are continuous.
One of the defining papers in this field is 2013 "Intriguing properties of neural networks" by Szegedy et al. In their own words from the abstract, "we find that deep neural networks learn input-output mappings that are fairly discontinuous to a significant extent"
I'm using the word "continuous" in the same sense as them. (Perhaps it does indeed mean what I think it means...)
In image processing like this article is talking about, the classic example of a harmful response is that your car's camera sees "speed limit 30" sign, but a small sticker it makes the image processor believe it saw a "speed limit 70" sign.
(this is an actual demonstrated attack. It means that pranksters could cripple self driving.)
The thing about these image classifiers is that they're not "continuous". You can make it see a stop sign as a right-of-way sign, or a green light.
Note that they tried 35 (i.e. 6 bits at 18 qbits needed) and failed.
That's a real shame, because I've always wondered what the prime factors of 35 might be.
I'm still holding out hope that they manage to figure this out during my lifetime.
As soon as cash is gone, taxes are going to be hiked because economic activity can't escape into the grey zone so easily.
Logically the opposite: as soon as cash is gone, taxes are going to decrease because economic activity can't avoid paying taxes by escaping into the grey zone so easily, and hence the people formerly dodging taxes will start paying their share.
Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada
