For me self-checkout is just the new express lane. I like using it if I only have a few items but only if there is not a line at the self-check. One caveat is that when people are slow at self check, they are extremely slow. If a line has formed it is not worth it, just go to a regular checkout instead. The bagging area is also too small to handle more than an express-lane sized load as well, and the machines will freak out if you remove a loaded bag to make room for a new one.

It depends what you see a stock as. If you think it is a distributed measure of the value a company can bring to an economy then meme investors are wrecking your engine of economic growth. However, if you think stocks are a way for people to make money without having to produce a product or service themselves, then this is just average joes butting in on a rich person game.

Cable companies are in a bind. They are losing subscribers and the only option they can think of is to raise prices. I guess it's time for another price hike. It has to be clear at this point that they're pricing themselves right out of the market and yet they don't seem to care.

Gonna need a citation for that. Because I know lots of Christians, but very few who spend 3 hours every Sunday at church.

Nice username. The meatbots aren't even trying any more are they?

A country on the brink of civil war. Protests erupt as a rebel faction refuses to recognize the results of an election. The rebels claim they are the last chance for democracy. The winning faction calls it a coup. Will the government crack down, or will sympathizers enable the coup to succeed?

Can we all now stop saying that law enforcement needs more training in de-escalation and riot control? This makes it very clear they can deal with large demonstrations - even ones where people are breaking into federal offices and threatening government officials - without overwhelming force and mass violence. They just need orders to do so.

Not if those police are anything like you. They would just tell the girls they got what they deserved. And the girls probably expected exactly that.

I'd like to send them a link they might find relevant.

Are you setting the bar too high? That's an honest question.

Humans are notoriously bad at recognizing people from other races. "They all look the same" has been a punchline for a long time. Failing the same way humans do, and for the same reason, seems like a vote in favor of the deep learning solutions.

Should we be looking for standardization at this point? I could see arguments on either side. We want to try lots of things vs. we need to be able to compare the different things we're doing.

So we need better inputs. That means the pretty-impressive results we're already getting will only get better.

Chess masters study previous games and situations so that when they see an arrangement on the board it looks like a solution they've already studied. How is that different from the AI doing it in real time?

Many CSRs work from scripts designed to do the exact same thing. Is there a functional difference between a chatbot that isn't able to improvise and a human who isn't allowed to?

This one I completely agree with you. As long as the hardware required for training is significantly greater than the hardware required to run the agent, it's going to run up against edge cases that it can never handle.

And graph paper mapping the screen so you can plan your images?

That's a bad comparison. A probability model would actually report something more like: There is a 90% probability that the candidate will get between 51% and 55% of the vote. A 90% probability of victory should absolutely not be interpreted to mean it's predicting the candidate will get 90% of the vote.

There's something sickening, but travel restrictions aren't it.

It works on two levels, get it? It's an insult - implying that your opinion is sickening - and it's describing the virus, which is sickening millions of people worldwide.

Have you seen evidence that those who die from it are also most likely to spread it to others? Because I haven't seen anyone claiming that.

If we assume the elderly and compromised will die from the same level of infection that a young, healthy person would recover from, I would expect those young, healthy people to be out and about more than the elderly both before and after they show symptoms. So those who survive would be most likely to spread it.

I'd be happy to see good research saying the opposite.