deadeye

Am I the only one here that remembers credit cards before they used any sort of online processing?

Back in the day, paying with a credit card was a hassle. There was a machine that would take an imprint of your card and you would sign the imprint. There was no authorization.

I feel like everyone with kids had this idea for an app, but not too many people actually did it. Nice job.

Where is that? There are lots of regional issues.

I'm starting to realize that secular culture has created a void that is leaving people unfulfilled. Yet I'm still struggling to become a believer myself.

I disagree with the articles thesis and was about to make all the points you listed here. Thanks for being critical even though you disagree.

See my above response. Admitting that your political adversaries aren't "bad", just "dumb", isn't exactly conciliatory.

The thesis of the article is that liberals are not "good" and conservative are not "bad", but that liberals are "educated" and conservatives are not.

And the article questions, "Maybe liberals are bad because we're the ones who made them so stupid?" (paraphrased).

Zero self awareness, as usual for the NYT.

So, this works frame by frame using SD, extracting a pose (for example) and generating a new frame using the prompt and the pose, then re-encoding gen'd frames as a video?

Seems interesting. Any demos?

What could you possibly mean? Government made it so much better. How else would you know that the cookies (you're going to consent to anyway) are being put on your computer?

When the worst of both parties get together, you know nothing good can come of it.

"That’s what the journalists are there for though - to do double checks and verify sources. This is CNN, no?"

Is this sarcasm? Seriously, I can't tell.

Consider the fact that there are thousands of environmental predictions. Are some right? Of course, some are. Perhaps only due to the fact that some HAD to be right given a normal distribution of predictions. That could just be survivorship bias. IDK.

To find environmental predictions that didn't happen try a google search for "Environmental Predictions that didn't happen", I promise you won't have to dig for results to find what you're looking for.

In the lists in various articles you'll find, notice that these predictions are often made by credentialed scientists from prestigious institutions, not an overhyped journalist making leaps from a scientific paper they don't understand.

One of biggest problem with the climate science is that it suffers from a selection bias. I think most people who go into that field already have their mind made up and their goal is to affirm their belief. And if they didn't, they'd be an unfunded nobody labeled a crackpot...as the skeptics/moderates often are.

That only makes sense if the predictions are accurate and highly probable. Time unfortunately, has shown that these dire predictions are often wrong.

There has been a good 20 years of climate hysteria to pull from. All one has to do is look at old newspapers and read the dire predictions from 2010 to have a good laugh at our sensational media.

"If this ocean current is collapsing because of the current temperature anomaly, then it has happened."

It must be my reading comprehension that's off, but what has happened? What is "it", the ocean current collapsing?

The thing is, I don't see anywhere in the article that says it is collapsing.

"A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature, found that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current – of which the Gulf Stream is a part – could collapse around the middle of the century, or even as early as 2025."

Nowhere does it say it is in the process of collapse, at least that I could find.

I, for one, applaud you for saying the quite part out loud.

If the lights are on at SO then they must be in the process of training their own AI with their own dataset and documentation for the topics covered. That is what it would take for me to make SO my first stop again. It should be very doable for that talented group.

Didn't they get the memo. 100+ million people signed up...but no one uses it.

This aged well.

People pointing at 100+ million sign-ups for thread don't seem to understand the reasoning behind it.

They think it is a reflection on Twitter. I doubt it.

This is hilariously bad reporting.

I suppose that is true as a baseline understanding of life. I should have inserted the word "voluntarily" in that sentence to be more explicit.

I'm not sure this is the forum to provide evidence to what is obviously true.

Around 1950 the global emissions of co2 from human causes was about 5 billion tons. It explodes after 1950, hockey stick like growth and is now about 35 billion tons.

Humans have produced more co2 in 70 years than we have since we started to walk on two feet.

I'm saying, if what humans had done to the planet by 1950 had caused levels of climate change that could be known and forcasted without advanced tools and research, then what we have done since should be way more observable without advanced tools and research. But it's not.

Take from that what you want.

$20 a month?

Climate science is not as causal as you suggest.

I got that error today. It went away after logging out then in.

This is garbage, top to bottom.

First, arguing that we "knew" about climate change before satellites, major expansion of energy consumption, and advanced computer models is counter productive at best to the human caused climate change theory.

If true, it could only reinforce the idea that the human impact on climate change is negligible and is a natural process that would be absorbed by any state of global energy consumption.

That is to say, you MIGHT be able to convince someone to change their life to live like people did in the 50's, be we're not going back to pre-industialization.

Is vice bankrupt yet? I mean, financially, not ethically. That ship sailed long ago.

Is this more than a username land grab?