I’ve worked on some of these lawsuits, including a rare few where buyers seeks to unwind the purchase. They’re all complete shit show money pits and the law makes it extremely hard for the plaintiffs to recover what a layperson would imagine they deserve even if they’re right, but this house just might be expensive enough to make it worth suing.
It took me what seemed like ages to figure out how to auth into Google cloud because the name of the module in their example code isn’t the name of the package. You shouldn’t have to be a detective to figure out what to pip install from looking at an import.
Then you don’t know ScarJo. She doesn’t fuck around and she has enough money to put legal fees where her mouth is. She was the vanguard of actors suing for streaming royalties, for example.
Also a lawyer, and the Middler case is apparently not understood so narrowly. The possible chilling effect on employability of actors who happen to look or sound just like already famous actors rankled me, too, and I really got into it with my entertainment law professor (who has had some quite high profile clients). His advice in no uncertain terms was basically “Sorry to those actors, but if you try to get away with hiring one of them knowing they’re likely to be confused with someone more famous, you’re stupid.”
No it’s either a violation of the NLRB rule against severance agreements conditioned on non-disparagement or it’s a violation of the common law rule requiring consideration for amendments to service contracts.
Record companies are the worst. They use the same “spray and pray” strategy as the VCs but charge the artists money to mitigate their risk. Monopolies…
Sure, I get the mechanics. My question is, if we can incorporate knowledge about chaperones into the models as explicit or latent variables, so to speak, then why can’t the models predict something like “probability of molecule a given the presence of chaperone b”?
One perhaps far fetched implication is that too many Americans could become unemployable by the US Govt. the chief concern of clearance interviews is eliminating risk that information about you can be used to gain leverage over you.
Having a pop up for only cookies is silly, but at least as often they’re used for data processing consent and that makes more sense than putting the consent form on a splash screen or in the body of the page I guess.
I’ve used it professionally on some occasions and tend to reach for it when a) its purported value outweighs its crude utilitarian aesthetic, or b) I want to loudly signal my awareness of “inclusive design”.
Yep. I know some personally. These applicants’ resumes lists their local address but they put a US address into the location fields of the application form and our ATS is none the wiser.
AI may be a problem for some hiring managers but I haven’t seen it yet. My problem is an ATS that can’t filter out the applicants who obviously live in India but list a US address, for some reason usually in TX. Almost everyone else at least gets a look.
I agree broadly, though I think it's important to distinguish between techniques, people, and religions. I'll follow certain people on LinkedIn who regularly post useful technical stuff in relatively plain language that I might not know about and which might come in handy. I've picked up some genuinely useful stuff this way. But then there are hordes of religious frequentists and bayesians having pseudo-intellectual knife fights and I avoid them about as vigilantly as I would people having actual knife fights.