rdruxn

But that's not morally gratifying! I came to this thread to be outraged.

I don't understand what role the facial recognition played in his arrest. The article says the actual thief used his name and other identifying info - it makes no claim about how the facial recognition software was utilized to make the arrest...

> I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that.

He seems to understand it perfectly whereas you seem to be mischaracterizing his words

I wouldn't know

Captain pedantic here, but it's a sign, not a symptom.

Yeah, you can’t power a super computer with a sandwich

How is HBO consumer-hostile?

As always, Betteridge's Law of Headlines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

I often have trouble explaining to people why this is problematic. I encounter the "I've got nothing to hide" or "Who cares if I get ads that I'm more interested in?" arguments.

What do you say to those people?

Perhaps it has not directly caused harm, but Facebook has certainly facilitated it.

>a voice message as an email attachment

Dear god why

The original paper cited in this article is from 2016

This might just be my confirmation bias speaking, but MIT seems to put out a lot of moverblown and clickbait-y headlines about their research.

The first paragraph and the sub header is an outright lie:

“Carbon-free fusion power could be ‘on the grid in 15 years’”

And then later:

“Prof Wilson was also cautious about the timeframe, saying that while the project was exciting he couldn’t see how it would achieve its goal of putting energy on the grid within 15 years.”

No

A daily habit does not strike me as moderation

Ah yes! It's like shazam for a song you can't get out of your head!

I don't think it's disingenuous of the media. I just think it exposes their ignorance and inability to imagine the negative consequences of such data analysis. It took something bad, i.e. Trump winning, for them to wake up to the dangers that they cared about.

I’m seeing a lot of comments here agreeing that it’s the fees, but I wonder how many consider that checking bags adds at least 20 minutes of walking to & waiting at the claim. If I can manage it, I’ll always opt to carry my bags, fees or not.

Betteridge’s law of headlines is one name for an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

My personal favorite is Poe’s Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law?wprov=sfti1

Bigotry?

You misspelled “facepsalmed”

Except their moves and announcements in recent weeks suggest that they're in fact prioritizing higher quality content e.g. local news (https://www.axios.com/facebook-to-prioritize-local-news-in-n...)

One of my favorite irony words. Like monosyllabic or ineffable.

Because at the end of the day, they still work and truly do help a vast number of people.

There are numerous federal regulations concerning the manufacturing of cars.

Black Mirror, season 5. Make it happen Mr. Brooker.

Linking spacex to the failure is the “sensationalist clickbait nonsense”

It's something fun to do with friends. There's an odd appeal to being allowed on your phone in a social setting.

That would be 25 hours in a day