nawgz
I mean, if we want to not talk about economics that’s fine, but can the AI actually do junior work at the same price? What if we don’t look only at quarterly reports, and instead include the value of having people knowing about the business having to explain it to others, who then learn it and can improve it over time?
I think it’s clear the AI is strong, there’s no doubt about that, but that’s not the whole picture.
> There are far better ways to detect cheating, such as calculating statistics on performance
Ask any CS player how VAC’s statistical approach compares to Valorant’s Vanguard and you will stop asserting such foolishness
The problem with what you are saying is that cheaters are extremely determined and skilled, and so the cheating itself falls on a spectrum, as do the success of various anticheat approaches. There is absolutely no doubt that cheating still occurs with kernel level anticheats, so you’re right it didn’t “solve” the problem in the strictest sense. But as a skilled player in both games, only one of them is meaningfully playable while trusting your opponents aren’t cheating - it’s well over an order of magnitude in difference of frequency.
And on the flip side I can easily see why not allowing email addresses to be used again is a reasonable security stance, email addresses are immutable and so limiting them only to one identity seems logical.
Sounds quite frustrating for this user of course but I guess it sounds a bit silly to me.
The entire fact that ICE is in Minnesota instead of a border state with heavier illegal immigration on patrols performing illegal 4th-amendment violating door to door raids is already a complete abomination in the face of American’s rights and their constitution.
And you disapprove of outrage over an innocent man being extrajudicially executed in the face of all of this?
Let me know how the boot tasted so at least I can learn something from this
I’ll therefore decline to comment on your assertions. I will acknowledge it’s time to consider Russian interference as expected if you are designing an internet connected system, fine, but it looks like it’s non trivial to fatally compromise these systems already.
It's fine to have this view that software should be defect free and hardened against sophisticated nation-state attackers, but it stretches the meaning of "defect" to me. A defect would be serving to fulfill that utility it had been designed for, not succumbing to malicious attackers.
Right, but we're talking about a private isolated AI account. There is no sense of social interaction, collaboration, shared spaces, shared behaviors... Nothing. How can you have such an analogue here?
I personally recommend motion-detecting air spray cans, I didn't want the cat to feel punished by me, he just needs to be redirected. Therefore I opt for these as a deterrent, since it is both effective and an action I undertake from the cat's view. I think he hates it because of the hiss, but the air spray itself might play a role.
I should resist more by saying, wow guys, this fascist action described in this BBC article sure shows how immoral Hegseth is! I should believe in the power of someone arresting the Secretary of War for his crimes, and I should list all the notable examples of party members being ostracized for loyalty from the current administration to emphasize how silly any viewpoint saying otherwise is! It would be grossly apathetic to comment that loyalty is clearly the most valued “virtue” any member of the current US leadership can exhibit, and I am just so privileged to say how it seems bad the most powerful military of all time is doing nothing to stop itself from being utilized however that glorious leadership desires!
Thanks so much for educating me!
Right, so the interesting thing that can be discussed and inspire our curiosity that is contained in the article is supposed to be what exactly?
> The article isn't; do you have a difficulty distinguishing the two?
You are leaning on this single observation so overtly it makes me wonder if you understand what the point of an article is - are you here to discuss the author's prose or the subject the writing describes?
> > We seem perfectly aligned.
> Do we, now?
I suppose I have to agree with you now. You seem to think this type of article will foster interesting discussion; I think it's only likely to flair emotions and surface a few people who have fallen for the propaganda. Certainly, I don't think anyone will have a new and interesting observation on the topic or any adjacent ones. The content of the thread would support my stance, and the fact your only participation in it is posting meta-defense of the article staying up rather than discussing the article perfectly aligns with my point: clown politics where might makes right are inherently boring to discuss, displeasing to think about, and when they are as insignificant and absurd as this action they will bring no insights to either the reader or the commenter.
This site is to foster curiosity and learning. Sure, [the action discussed in the article]* is a bonafide master class in fascism, and we could all learn about the futility of checks and balances when sufficiently corrupted by money and propaganda and outside influence.
But none of that will happen on an article merely describing an instance of fascism. Instead, some people will say "wow, this doesn't make sense", others will say "it is nakedly corrupt", and maybe a few from the cult will pop by to start a flame war.
Can you really disagree? The discussion is incredibly uninspired. Not a single interesting link or new mode of thought is posted in 59 comments.
How about the part where the Pentagon, staffed by a Fox News anchor, fresh off firing the top legal heads, are now accusing a decorated American of sedition for reciting the law?
> Since we're not in alignment on this
We seem perfectly aligned.
> We could talk about how that outcome could be avoided, or what could be done in general
We could also run on a hamster wheel. Both would be equally impactful.
> Your reflex to question its relevance
That's a lot of projecting.
There is only really one thing to be said here: the Pentagon and the current administration continues its campaign of blatant corruption, scorning its enemies with absurd doublespeak and blatant abuse of the court system, enabled by a Congress which has fully abdicated its duty as part of its loyalty to the current President King.
What is there to talk about? How we wish that was different? How the media being captured by oligarchs is a main enabler of the current oligarchy? How what Mark Kelly said was clearly not sedition and that use of this term is yet another example of "flooding the zone" and other disinformation tactics by the administration, to deflect from their own crime and rile up their base?
Great talk, haven't heard any of that before!
Let's not pretend that pre-AI, megacorps actually cared about enthusiasm. This is a symptom of a class war, not a technology.
Weak!
Listing a bunch of white house links and then 2 criticisms (edit: he got it up to about 6 criticisms of marijuana legislation, wow!) which aren't even really about the action but more about the general malfeasance of the administration is an extremely weak supporting argument behind "liberals criticize anything good Trump does the same way conservatives criticized anything good Biden did", because we can identify plentiful examples of naked hypocrisy around the criticisms of Biden - see the autopen debacle for one hilariously manufactured self-owning example.
It must really be quite trying to justify Trump's actions, I'm amazed you have failed to use any of that energy on introspection.