Why not when we invented nuclear weapons and set civilization on the path of destruction? Or when we invented fertilizer and set the wilderness on the path of destruction or when we started applying science and set traditional stabilizing religious cultures on the path of destruction? I know why. It's because you're overwhelmed with your own contemporary culture which has indoctrinated you to believe that particular doomsday prophecy. Other cultures have/had different ones and that will surely continue into the future.
Congratulations on your fun project. Be careful about "literally impossible" though. If it's truly identical to aiming by hand, it won't help you. If it isn't, there might be some statistical (in)consistency that's detectable with enough play.
It's kind of strange that leftism is very concerned about future people when it comes to the environment but the polar opposite in other areas like technology and social stability where they favor individuals alive today over long term benefits to the whole society. For example worker's rights ahead of business growth or individual freedoms ahead of robust social structure.
Plastic production has pretty high GHG emissions. I think it's higher than glass for comparable bottles, though I'm not sure about that.
But people arguing about landfills are just idiots. Put it in a secure landfill in some geologically stable desert and stop worrying if that's really a problem.
You know that people in the US can spend a year in jail waiting for their trial, right? People keep making up arbitrary reasons why US=good and other country=bad just to justify their existing belief.
And what about forced education for children in the US? Nobody bats an eye at that, except the victims themselves.
It's possible he really did violate Google's "Program Policies" which are utterly ridiculous:
"If storing or distributing content related to terrorism for an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic purpose be mindful to provide enough information so viewers understand the context."
So a random photo of a ute with the ISIS logo on the side might be a violation if you don't also write some commentary explaining what it's about and assuring everyone that you aren't promoting or celebrating terrorism. But where? in another file? How will a person with a link to the photo find that?
Not wanting to get caught up in this analogy war but I think there's a clear distinction between "proper" news which tries hard to be factually correct and "fake news" that's just made-up lies. The problem I see is that people judge the former type as being informative and the latter as misinformative. In reality, both intentionally mislead people using different techniques - proper news by exploiting human reading comprehension weaknesses to plant false ideas in readers' heads without technically lying, and fake news by exploiting gullibility by actually lying.
Yea not excusing Amazon ignoring their requests or blindly using AI results to decide compensation, or that it can encourage dangerous driving to get points, or that it's probably inaccurate. Overall awful, but might be a fun game if you didn't depend on the job for your livelihood.
You want researchers to not attempt to identify the causes of black social problems? Why's that? So you can promote your own ideologically motivated causes without any bothersome science getting in the way?
Then don't make ridiculous statements like "But why not do everything we can, as a society, to protect ourselves from irresponsible people?" Of course you know the answer to that question is "because those protections cause problems themselves". It adds nothing to anybody's understanding and is a dirty trick to fool people without making any effort.
They're distinctly different physical phenomena. Surface waves are like spring-mass systems where gravity acts as the spring (hence they're also called gravity waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave). They can't exist in a homogenous medium, like underwater approximately is. Since they're travelling waves, they carry energy when they travel away from the boat, so it's a source of energy loss.
It's almost as if playing in the rat race isn't easy or fair. Moving to a rural area or living on social welfare is usually also an option but you have to quit the rat-race to do that and miss out on all the wealth and social status.
"only"? What if that's their main goal? You're still judging them for having values that are different from yours, which is something that comes naturally to anyone. The whole point of learning to have empathy is so you can empathize with people whose values are incompatible with your own. You probably don't even understand their values and take their superficial statements literally because you're too keen to judge them as bad instead of understand their underlying feelings that they may not even be able to articulate themselves.
You're missing the point. If the AI is consistently penalizing drivers for looking in the mirror, then it'll affect them all equally and not be unfair. If it treats some drivers worse than others, why didn't they mention that instead of leaving us to assume that there really are drivers who are never penalized for looking in the mirror?
TFA even points out drivers making excuses for not wearing a seatbelt. If they won't even take personal responsibility for their own illegal actions, of course their opinions on more subtle things like following distances aren't reliable.
This comment reminds me of a, thankfully small, subset of drivers who believe their driving is infallible and it must be the other drivers' fault if they're penalized.
What the driver is attempting to do is a complex task. I’m willing to give the AI here the benefit of the doubt ;)
I'm talking about the unfairness, not safety. The article doesn't say that some drivers are allowed to do it while others aren't but still presents the whole thing as unfair.
It's hard to believe or every single driver would get the same consequences. This reminds me of drivers who complain about speeding tickets right after the speed limit changed. Well, slow down before the speed limit changes and you'll be fine. Some people just have bad habits without realising.
I used to be "lazy" by not working. Then Covid lockdown happened and suddenly everybody else wasn't working either. It truly made me feel better about my own behavior. It's pretty relative.
So all political protest, especially if it's annoying to others or dangerous to the protestor? No. You clearly are just judging political protests that you personally don't happen to support the aims of. You're entirely missing the point of understanding people's needs and what empathy is.
Everyone automatically has empathy for people they feel aligned or connected with. You don't even have to try.
Home ownership is not an essential need. People aren't excluded from housing because of that risk. They can just rent from a landlord who's taking that risk themselves.
Wow. The amount of people here who would have wanted to ban cars when they were first invented is incredible. Luckily the world has plenty of inspired people actually doing novel things and these stuck-in-the-muds don't have much power.
Another solution is to not worry about it. Rational people will have enough toilet paper to survive the shortages caused by panic buying of irrational people. You did have enough toilet paper, didn't you? Or were you short-sightedly assuming the shops would always have what you wanted when you wanted it?
and normal homeowners stopping densification out of fear of reducing the value of their own home or just not wanting the riff-raff living near them. These people are really the ones doing a directly harmful thing for pure selfish greed. They're not super-rich, they're just people's parents. But they're trying to make money by excluding others instead of doing anything useful.
What's wrong with illegal stuff? Perhaps you mean to say stuff that your culture shames, abuses or ostracizes people for? In that case, yea, that's why somebody would want to hide their activity.
Because it limits the freedom of those "irresponsible" people. We could ban every activity that has the slightest chance of harm but then none of us could do anything. No computer tinkering allowed - might create a virus! No chemistry allowed - might create drugs! No dogs allowed - they might bite someone.
That's the former type. Maybe my sentence was too messy to clearly distinguish them. Ships generate a V-shaped surface wave and (deep enough) submarines don't.