sphinxster

"Watching the subjects of the most successful promotional campaigns over the last 120 years"

Images and videos from the mission:

https://images.nasa.gov/search-results?q=artemis%20resource%...

Yes, my eyes don't hurt anymore, my vision has improved, and I sleep better. I won't go back. Reading condescending insults and "reasons" (in dark mode...) that flatly contradict direct experience won't change that.

Whataboutism is whataboutism.

Attempting to invoke the thankfully largely-discarded concept of "whataboutism" is actually just a kind of backhanded ad hominem used to avoid making a real argument and instead try to make people "look the other way".

Criticism of the existing financial system in the context of discussing a proposed replacement for it is about as related a discussion as possible.

Simply stating that all crypto is bad/criminal adds nothing of value to the discussion.

The truth is that there are (as there generally is with new technologies), useful and practical purposes to which they are applied. Indeed, the majority instances so far of "crypto" having caused harm has actually been the result of an ordinary centralised trust-based fraud donning the label "crypto" to draw in victims to loot.

The #1 mantra of crypto has always been "not your keys, not your coins". Had it been followed, instead of perverted into its opposite and mislabelled "crypto", the most heinous of these scams would not have been enabled.

The thing most actively facilitating crime and fraud in "crypto" lately is the profoundly misguided belief that giving your money to someone you've never met you saw on TV is safer than keeping it in your own wallet.

Crypto is not to blame for that belief, it was invented to provide an alternative.

Thank you for this interesting insight I haven't seen before.

Are there any datasets out there that provide the full edit stream of a human from idea to final refinement, that a model could be trained on?

Couldn't ChatGPT? As-is, this seems almost a good prompt...

Where is the line? One could equally then argue use the number working on only the one construction site. Eventually a point can be reached where 1 death may "seem" improbable. A wider view reveals a context people seem to have missed.

Why is it a pity? Over time it will be revealed which group was thinking with the most clarity and prudence.

There are 1+ million migrant workers in Qatar. Roughly, the average human mortality rate is about 1% per year. In a given population of 1 million, you could expect about 27 to die, on average each day. (0.01x1000000)/365 = 27

Sure, more elderly people make up the 1%, and if accounting for the workers ages maybe you'll have half that figure. Or a quarter. The point is, in context, one worker dying out of a million on any given day is unfortunately expected.

It doesn't mean it's not sad, or that the persons life was worthless, or that the death should not be investigated to determine the cause. It does mean that out of 1 million, thousands will ordinarily die during any given year.

How many times per day would it take for an authority to issue a statement like the above before such statements begin to seem trite and meaningless?

So could someone, say, cajole the AI to output a fuzzer with the goal of finding a path to executing arbitrary code?

If so, then any similar user-input powered AI applications might run this kind of risk.

Trigger warning, it's described as a "text game", but there are also images.

But, doesn't TCP/IP also fundamentally power and enable almost every conceivable ostensibly "bad" thing happening on the internet?

Like, for example, "crypto"?

This page needs a working example use-case.

About 1 in 10 die each year in the US as a result of medical malpractice. The oft-cited 2016 John Hopkins study has it at ~250k (of 2.7m all-cause).

For 2016 that's 1 in 1300 people in the US, a first world nation with world class medical infrastructure.

I wonder what's the worldwide figure? And what % of it overlaps with that 1 in 400?