clipsy

They're so furious they might even say some mean things on Twitter before they line up to vote straight ticket Republican again!

We're going to build a wall and we're going to make them pay for it.

I can't help but notice that you're still providing absolutely no evidence for an extraordinary claim.

If you're seriously claiming black women didn't have the right to vote in 1976, you should probably provide some evidence rather than snide remarks.

Why aren't you? If you believe that the people "running the show" are the most corrupt of all time (I think that's a stretch, though they're certainly the most corrupt in my lifetime), then it seems like you should be quite critical of a person describing it as "business as usual."

Isn't that the supreme court's job?

There is no “browser business,” because people are - with rare exceptions - unwilling to pay for a web browser. Even Firefox is ad-supported indirectly via its default search contract with google.

That's not fair, there are also a lot of world leaders that pay lip service to concern about global warming while defending corporate interests at all costs!

That's a great way to get access to them in 3-12 months.

It isn't making mistakes that's a strength, it's the commitment to acknowledging and addressing mistakes.

Well, surely Anthropic's executives should be charged under the CFAA[0] then, right?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

> The main trend is that models are moving out of cloud to local setup to avoid paying for tokens. This becomes possible due to free open-source models like Kimi K3 that already reached level of the best commercial models.

Who on earth is running a 1.8T parameter model locally? The hardware to do that with a usable token/s rate for a single person is (at least) well into 5 figure territory.

That's actually more aggressive than the rule as it exists, which merely requires that AI-modified listing photos be labeled as such.

Real, friendly, generous humans live in Haiti, too. That doesn't make it a good travel destination.

Mr Tan was not the one who retained the Apple-issued laptop:

> Liu also failed to return an Apple-issued laptop after his departure.

> Like, if you're a kid drinking and shooting bystanders from the back of an Uber, what do you think is going to happen?

I certainly don't think the Uber driver would hold me prisoner.

Netflix -- and most streamers at this point -- seem to think that dragging out the time between seasons to 2, 3, sometimes even 4 years is something they can do without a cost. Viewers forget the plot lines, lose interest in the characters, etc and ultimately don't tune in (and are less engaged if they do tune in) for seasons 2+.

The costs are additive, unless you think there are people buying the helmet without a bike.

> Which raises the question: why should these robots be prioritized over humans? Why can't they use the streets when there are pedestrians? Why should the SAFETY OF HUMANS be compromised for these profit-seeking corporations and their robots?

That's a good start, now ask some of the same questions about cars vs pedestrians. Ultimately, big money will win as it always does. Get used to dodging robots.

The New York Times (which published this) and the New Yorker are different publications.

The premise of the Republican party for half a century now has been: "The government can't do anything right, and if you elect us we'll prove it!"

Sounds like a skill issue, I've been remote for most of my career and have not had trouble getting promoted.

Clinical trials don’t happen until there’s a treatment to try.

Will Google foot the bill for anything that goes wrong?

So if a Democratic president uses the IRS to illegally seize assets from billionaires and the courts later rule it illegal, your opinion would be that the government should get to keep the money? If not, could you explain why it would be different?

There are two possibilities: One is that Flock is genuinely only being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes and proves useful in less than 0.1% of cases -- a data point the taxpayers footing the bill certainly deserve to know; the other is that there are a very large number of illegitimate uses, which any reasonable citizen should oppose.

Why are people like you so eager to defend Flock rather than simply expecting transparency on its uses?

I don’t think you quite understand what a “source” is.

> This chucklehead CEO will be the unemployable one.

The chucklehead CEO will get a severance package worth more than you've made in your life and walk into another C-suite position courtesy of his golfing buddies.

Your version is a lovely thing to daydream about, though.

How is bias defined in this context? Is it always bad to be biased?

I think it's obviously correct that people have a right to defend themselves (including by using their car as a weapon) when genuinely threatened. But looking at the video, I see no indication whatsoever that he was in any danger; he was being inconvenienced and harassed, these are not things that justify a use of potentially lethal force in response. He had every opportunity to simply call the police and wait it out without endangering anyone's life.

Claims of self defense need to be held to a higher standard than a wholly subjective and non-falsifiable claim of "feeling threatened," otherwise it devolves into nothing more than selectively allowing assault and murder.