"...do you discover who's been swimming naked."

AI mostly comes to us from California, the original land of "Fake it till you make it". AI fakes intelligent results, without "knowing" anything, with what Gary Marcus calls "a world model". A world model means you "know", that you "understand", that you "comprehend" that:

-- the cited-cases part of a legal filing should be only drawn from the list of existing cases that the thing was given
-- that laws mentioned should exist in documents called "Title Code" that the thing was given
-- that there are laws, these are supreme "orders" above others given
-- that one of them is "killing human beings is against supreme orders that supercede all other instructions" (sorry, not on topic: it's just HAL didn't "know" the 3 laws)
-- that human hands have just the five fingers.

They just fake it, producing documents that look like good ones. They can't make it. Not in them. No world model.

And the tide is going out.

Tim Waltz is a criminal mastermind. He's been hacking other states' water so that he can keep all 10,000 of his lakes topped off at the expense of hard working Americans.

IDK man, there is one type of person that complains about being unfairly targeted wit these bans. If you got banned, its probably obvious. I mean have you seen the shit they didn't ban people for?

Changing out running code on the fly probably increases the number of corner cases by an order of magnitude.

What could possibly go wrong?

The actual problem is we, the people, have not yet decided if mass recording and storage of identifiable images should be illegal. The people must decide if they wish to enact laws that prohibit this activity and create laws to prevent it. This means we need to let our local representatives know we want to restrict this mass surveillance and storage of our whereabouts. They write the bills and if enough people support it, it passes and becomes law.

Without a law to prevent it, these companies will attempt to generate income from anything not yet illegal. If we feel strongly enough, we need to create these laws to stop it. Many cities and states are writing laws that prevent capturing information, limit how long the data is saved, or who can query the data. The laws in Boston, Boise, and Barstow will very different depending on the amount of public pushback each location generates.

Look, I hate to even write this because the apologism (to paraphrase "Yeah, but it wasn't all that violent") should invalidate what you're saying automatically - sure, the degree might matter, but it's still clearly over the line - but the summary did use the term "violently smashed". Now, you could say that's exaggeration, or there's another side of the story, etc. What I can tell you anecdotally, though it's not about a creampie, is about the time someone smashed an egg on my back. Or, that is, they tried to, but they hit pointy end (and these were also farm fresh eggs with much stronger shells than modern factory-farmed eggs) first where the eggs have tremendous structural strength, so it was like being hit by a pointy rock that stayed completely intact and then fell and smashed on the floor. The idea that the thing is just soft and harmless can be a misconception. The same goes for a pie. It depends somewhat on whether the pie tin is foil or solid metal, for example. But also on how hard the person is swinging the pie and whether they keep pushing and grinding it in, etc. after (because you know some people really, really will, and quite hard). Basically, you're talking about a punch in the face, barely cushioned by the cream pie. Whichever way you look at it, this is hazing and bullying and it's wrong.

See, this is one of those "quiet part out loud" things. Where a little outburst pretty much proves that your previous claims that this sort of thing is "good natured" is quite simply a lie. It pretty much is all about singling someone out for abusive bullying for you.

Yeah pretty much thats true of the definition people currently use. However, come on, Elon obviously hates Africans more than any other race. I don't know how you could think otherwise and maintain any intellectual honesty. But if you're sucked into what ever name we've given Elon acolytes, then that would make more sense.

I remember when you were finally allowed to connect your own phone handsets to your phone line, but you had to contact the phone company and give them the Ringer Equivalence Number (REN) printed on the bottom of the phone. Because the power to ring the bell in the phone came from the phone line, the phone company needed to know if your total REN was above 5 so they could supply more power on your line.

As more phones started using electronic ring sounds instead of mechanical bells, the whole REN reporting disappeared. As homes transitioned to multi-handset cordless phones, the whole line-powered phone was forgotten.

How about "Take the guns first, go through due process second" from Donald Trump. Also not previous typically a Republican position (except when the Black Panthers emerged, I suppose).

Regardless of exactly how rough or not the estimate is, The math does make it clear that you don't want to put it under your pillow. If it's 0.08 mrem for five minutes, then it would be .96 mrem for an hour and 7.86 mrem for a nights sleep. Then about thirteen nights to hit the yearly max of 100 mrem. Basically, in a year, if it's where you sleep, you'll get double your yearly dose. Wear it as a necklace, even to bed and you're looking at quadrupling your yearly dose. However you want to nitpick about how much radiation it takes to increase your cancer risk by whatever percent, eventually you'll hit it.

Seriously? Basically all life on Earth as we know it (with the exception of stuff like chemosynthetic life) ultimately gets its energy from the sun. When I was a kid, they taught this stuff in kindergarten. All other things being equal (and subject to some other factors, but not ones that greatly invalidate this general rule) crop yields are directly proportional to the amount of light we get from the sun. Dim that enough to prevent global warming, and we can't feed ourselves any more without using a lot more cropland. Not to mention that most farms operate on incredibly thin margins as it is, so there's a mass wave of them going out of business, etc.

The greenhouse effect doesn't happen because we get too much sunlight, it happens because the atmosphere is basically transparent to most of the incoming light but, when it gets converted to IR, the atmosphere is opaque to that IR, so it absorbs it and warms and re-emits it back to the ground. The amount of light passing through the atmosphere is a completely different variable. Trying to fix global warming by tweaking a different variable that affects other things too is a very tricky proposition. It's like if the water pressure in a downstairs tap is too high, but it's fine on the third floor, so you put in a regulator at the water main and reduce the pressure for the whole house. Great, you just solved the downstairs water pressure problem, but you just created a low water pressure problem on those upstairs taps. Basically, you will have "fixed" the wrong problem. If we want an analogy that relates more directly to heat, let's say you have an electronics project that keeps overheating. So you "solve" the problem by reducing the amperage from the power source. With less power it doesn't heat up so mach. Problem solved, except of course that now for some strange reason the LED display isn't lighting up right and it keeps powering on, then abruptly powering off and back on again. Weird.

I didn't even go into weather. Dimming the sun on a global scale will have a massive effect on weather. I mean, that's the idea right? To affect climate, which will also affect weather. The problem is that it won't just magically be the same weather you would get without the greenhouse effect, the actual distribution of energy will be different. Among other problems will be severe droughts in various areas that will increase desertification. Basically, you'll break monsoon cycles in some areas, decrease the hydrologic cycle overall, etc. If you're shaking your head and confused about how some of the same bad stuff from global warming can happen even in a system that reduces overall warming, that's one of the reasons why many have been trying to emphasize that it's about climate change. All of the Earth's biospheres as well as human civilizations tend to rely on the status quo. Massively changing it on the short term is usually a catastrophe. Global warming does that, but so does global dimming. You can't just target one single variable (global average temperature) and if you keep that stable, you're golden.

...with a couple more features you probably don't need, missing some cool stuff you'd rather have.

And hideously expensive and complicated to administer, instead of free.

But we don't want that! Yes, we want the global temperatures to stay down, but not by having less sunlight. That would have its own set of problematic consequences.

And there are 240 pence in a pound, so that's 960 Farthings. Four farthings in a pence, 12 pence in a shilling, 20 shillings in a pound. Of course, then it gets more complicated when you get to coins like the guinea, which was introduced as a one pound gold coin, but since it was gold, was prone to fluctuating values, but the British government eventually locked its value at 21 shillings. Later, in the Regency era, they minted the sovereign, which had less gold to reset the value and that was worth exactly one pound. Of course, both coins were vulnerable to the bullion value being too far above the face value to avoid the coins being melted down. So, while the system isn't impossibly complicated, it wasn't very cut and dried either.