Comment Re: Probably due to methodical errors (Score 1) 192
Ordinary people do not decide about the pay of others in actual reality.
Yes they do. Management/employers are not some special class of person.
Ordinary people do not decide about the pay of others in actual reality.
Yes they do. Management/employers are not some special class of person.
So your reply has nothing do do with the pot it was replying to then. So why reply then?
Interesting that you immediately jumped to censorship. Why is that?
The muh freeze peach crowd are about the worst defenders of free speech I've ever met.
Speech is powerful and dangerous, which is why it is important and needs to be free. Pretending otherwise is to diminish it and erase the need for it to be protected.
Anything that challenges your assumptions must be a joke. Therefore you never need to change your mind on anything!
Coll story bro. Got a citation for that "fact"?
They have been trained to view language as a tool that can cause real, psychological harm.
It absolutely 100% is.
In modern youth culture, the prevailing ethical rule is that the impact on the listener matters more than the intent of the speaker.
If you run over someone with a car by accident, they're just as dead whether you intended to or not. That's the thing really, harm is independent of intent and intent is not readily apparent.
WTF is a Joule anyway?
A unit of torque, obviously.
False dichotomy!
I always like it when Republicans claim to be "pro-life" yet go out of their way to kill women and children. In Texas, since their abortion ban, the rate of maternal deaths has increased and several women have died because hospitals refused to perform a medical abortion because the doctor and hospital might get sued.
Who was telling them that if they treated ectopic pregnancies they might face legal repercussions? Is that what the law actually said?
I believe you'll find it was the people who opposed the law who waged a campaign of disinformation to try to convince people that women would not be able to get life saving care. Turns out there are actual dangers to lying to slander your opponents when it's about what kind of medical treatment is available.
So lesson learned, going to be very careful not to mischaracterize in the future right?
Which just goes to show they don't care about people and this lawsuit should be thrown out. They can't claim AI might endanger peple because of a "hack" while at the same time letting people die from a preventable disease.
Look at Pennsylvania. Over 900 measles cases so far this year, with 4 dead in the past month. One was 18-years old, the other 40-years old. The other two were children below the age of 5. And this doesn't take into consideration any other damage people suffer from measles such as deafness.
The article OP cites is about a policy study for a policy that no one has so far enacted or voted for. How does that become proof that "they don't care about people and this lawsuit should be thrown out." How did you extrapolate the "they"? How did you manage to impart motive into every member of that collective based on an unfulfilled hypothetical? How did that lead to being able to seek an injunction on AI? Have you established it is the same "they" in question? And when the "they" has a position you don't like it become a prohibition on any action they could possibly take? How does that work in general?
Pennsylvania has a democratic governor, democratic house, democratic senator, voted for Obama, Obama again, and Biden. Their measles outbreak is laid up as a Republican failing? Why isn't Florida much worse then? Canada has been having thousands of cases to they point they lost their measles elimination status. Who is in control of Canada?
Building translators is good clean fun. -- T. Cheatham