garg
garg on Hacker News
His point is that he has read Shakespeare but not the linked article.
Salman Khan of KhanAcademy many years ago suggested that study should be done at home and homework should be done in-person in class with the help of a teacher. That would solve a lot of the homework problems AI access is causing. But it would require extra effort on the part of the teachers.
Is your employer forcing you to use Haiku to save on costs?
Isn't this exactly what Dario wanted?
It's not inevitable but it's probable.
Not that it is any less impressive but they continued the development of their existing engine from WC1.
The lottery paying for schooling is a clever self-defeating policy because it moves the tax-burden to the same people who would most benefit from a good public school system.
Each time there is an update to training algorithms and in response poisoning algorithms, artists will have to re-glaze, re-mist, and re-nightshade all their images?
Eventually I assume the poisoning artifacts introduced in the images will be very visible to humans as well.
Mr Miyazaki is alive and well.
The employees specifically criticized Musk as being a 'distraction' due to his recent antics, and now they're being fired for not 'staying focused'
Would your CEO behave like Musk and expect zero consequences and zero push-back from the the board, the public, and the employees?
Are only things with worth regulated? Pyramid and Ponzi schemes are worth nothing and are regulated.
It was made more specific in Brandenburg v. Ohio but it was not overturned. ie, if someone is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which is "speech brigaded with action" then it is a situation where a person could be prosecuted for speech. They used that very example.
Edit:
People can read it themselves: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Fire in a crowded theater is specifically mentioned as the sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.
In my previous comment, I am roughly equating incorrectly yelling fire in a crowded theater with broadcasting fake news to millions of people.
If there were a way to clearly differentiate between free speech and fake news, then yes, I would support legal ramifications for spreading blatant intentional fake news created solely as profitable propaganda that causes harm, and treating that as intentionally lying about fire in a crowd.
I don't know what the best organization or process for setting that up would be. After a certain number of complaints, can we transparently look into the owners of the news media, their revenue streams, their involvement with foreign governments, to determine whether a company is a legitimate news source or not? Can we get non-profits and media-freedom watchdogs involved to ensure fairness? Can we get the fairness doctrine running again? I don't see why not.
The violent attack on the capitol was the result of fake news media without anyone ever inciting violence. They simply need to repeat over and over that the election was stolen and that caused the violence and people died.
Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal and no one is inciting violence in that situation either. There are many commonalities between broadcasting fake news for profit and propaganda, and incorrectly yelling fire in a crowd. Both end up resulting in public safety hazards.
It is a difficult problem to deal with because there is always the possibility of corruption and a reduction in genuine free speech when there is regulation involved. But it is a problem that has to be solved.
It is also no longer social media only, it is Fox, OANN, NewsMax, Sinclair, etc that are increasingly filling up air time with lies solely to make a buck.
The government should be regulating the broadcast of false information that is blatant propaganda. Freedom of speech is not freedom to broadcast blatant lies to millions of people.
Who do you think should exert pressure against networks that broadcast misinformation and propaganda to millions of people?
Making people doubt untrustworthy things by educating them through a proper process is good. Exposing an unsuspecting/uneducated population to manipulated content designed to deceive/fool them for nefarious purposes is not an ideal process if the goal is to make the general public have better judgement.
This is a global issue. For examples, please look into the societal concerns surrounding 'deep fakes', and 'fake news' for answers to your first two questions.
Hardly progressive - Everything progressive is simply deemed to be vulgar hate speech and then blocked. Don't forget that it's a very conservative country that, in my opinion, would be a Republican utopia if the official religion was christianity instead of Islam.
The first line of the article is
>When major decisions must be made amid high scientific uncertainty, as is the case with Covid-19, we can’t afford to silence or demonize professional colleagues with heterodox views.
How much scientific uncertainty actually exists when it comes to climate change and its causes?
Your opinion is unpopular because it makes no sense and does not improve security. The attacker will simply recruit a "Yian" because that's your blind spot now.
And they wanted to keep this plane in the air and the CEO was making calls assuring high level people of its safety instead of immediately recalling it and starting an independent investigation. With this many problems, it's frightening that they wanted to continue risking the lives of the crew and passengers.
It is legal to plant local indigenous trees and plants in national/state parks? Or is this classified as guerrilla gardening?
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offse..."They further report that much of the new growth came about due to efforts by humans (such as reforestation efforts in China and parts of Africa) and because of global warming—warmer temperatures have raised timberlines in some mountainous regions, and allowed forests to creep into tundra areas. Other areas of new tree growth resulted from large farm abandonments in places like Russia and the U.S. The researchers report that their calculations showed that human activities have directly caused approximately 60 percent of new global tree growth. They suggest their technique for monitoring tree cover could be used to predict tree cover changes in the future due to global warming."
So reforestation efforts led by humans has contributed to this change. AND global warming caused by humans has caused the tundra to warm up enough that forests have moved up there.
OP did not mention Ruby; OP mentioned Rust.
The oceans are being polluted with plastics at an alarming rate and will be littered for thousands of years without human intervention. And littering isn't the big problem, it's the broken system/lifecycle of plastics which doesn't have a safe, efficient way of disposal, reuse, or breakdown.
Even if you take every plastic and drop it into a bin, you're either going to burn it or dump it. Most of the plastic trash in the US is also just shipped to other countries with more lax laws so they just either burn it or dump it. Until we have a proper process for disposing plastics safely and cleanly, we must reduce using it in the ridiculous way we're using it. Single-use plastic bag should never be used if you have a way to use a reusable cloth bag instead.
The FEC has only confirmed that they've received the complaint from the right-leaning National Legal and Policy Center, but have not commented on whether they are investigating anything.
What type of security job did you switch to? Are you auditing code for security flaws? Are you creating organizational security policies? Is it a management position?