No. Algorithms do not decide. People implement algorithms. People decide.

Well yeah, the whole idea was bullshit to begin with. Everyone knew they would censor as much as possible the minute they had the chance.

No. She didn’t struggle. She got it totally wrong. Bad headline.

The headline is a lie. Developers will be fine. One company will lose users. And rightly so.

Actually the post is wrong. Geologists had the general idea long before that. The detailed explanations were missing, but matching rock formations and borders and using common sense is quite old.

Yes of course it is a giant scam. That was the entire point. But it’s not just one person. The military industrial complex has many moving parts.

What’s an “actual” expense, anyway. Money is being spent on things and services. It’s probably not being burned in a campfire.

Talking about the book is really a waste of time. Read it or don’t, but discussing the context of the book is boring.

That is my opinion. Of course people may disagree, sok.

If you always do, then that means it’s normal, by definition.

The funny thing is that if AI coding were that good, we would already see widespread adoption in open source projects. But we haven’t, because it sucks. Of course commercial software development companies are free to lie about how much they use AI, or get creative with their metrics so they can get their KPI bonuses. So we can’t really believe anything they say. But we can believe in transparency.

As always, there are so many people selling snake oil by saying the word AI without actually telling you what they mean. Quite obviously there are a great many tools that one could call AI that can be and are and have been used to help do a ton of things, with many of those technologies going back decades. That’s different from using ChatGPT to write your project. Whenever you hear someone write about AI and not give clear definitions, there’s a good chance they’re full of s***.

Not only the shareholders. If some of the higher level administration can get richer in the short run, even if that might actually hurt the shareholders in the medium run, you can bet that many of them will do so.

I’ve been in your position and in the other person’s position many times. It can be frustrating but we need to think about the big picture. It’s possible you hadn’t considered a certain approach, and it’s probable that many other future readers will not have considered a certain approach. So even though you might have said that you want to do something specific, it’s often helpful to some people to provide general information of another way to tackle the same issue.

And of course you know your own situation, so now there are these comments that appear off topic, and they kind of are, for you, and that’s just how it is on forums.

The other situation that comes up a lot is that people are doing it wrong. They are misusing some piece of technology and while their kluge might kind of work right now, it’s setting themselves up for bigger issues in the future. Of course no one appreciates it when you tell them they’re doing it wrong.

The Democrats didn’t even try to push universal healthcare. They chatted about it slightly and then quickly decided that they really wanted Obamacare. We all know that it was an intentional handout to the insurance companies, and you can blame obstructionist Republicans if you like, because they certainly did exist, but the Democrats were happy with what they got.

And I think it’s extra clear that the Democrats were more than happy to please their corporate funders because of how they handled the big bank bailout around the same time.

One of the articles I read yesterday mentioned that it’s quite likely the fetus will have health complications, possibly incredibly severe ones, but the doctor they interviewed didn’t make strong direct claims.

So the answer to your question is yes, it does affect the pregnancy, most likely somehow. This news came out fairly recently, so perhaps we will get some more expert opinions over the next week or so.

A great number of people have thought of many non-religious reasons. If you look online, you can find them. I’m sure you’ve heard some of them before, and it just slipped your mind momentarily.

It sounds like you’ve been luckier than most, because in my limited experience personally and my extensive viewing of YouTube videos, it’s so clear that the vast majority of cops in the US are bad cops. Remember, good cops don’t let bad cops do bad things. Bad things include intimidation, lies, crimes, and civil rights violations.

But what about patience? What if cops are only being patient because the law is not on their side? That doesn’t really make them good cops, now does it. For example, if the cop pulls you over and asks you for your license and insurance, of course you have to present it. But you don’t have to present it within 10 seconds. A cop might appear patient because they wait a minute or two, but actually state law probably requires them to do so.

I think it’s also fun to depart from the law and to briefly consider basic morality. If a cop pulls you over and asks you questions, you don’t have to answer any of them. How many cops tell you that before they start asking questions? None. They’re trying to take advantage of the fact that you might not know about, or you might be scared to express your constitutional rights. And the law is on their side, but morality isn’t. We should keep that in mind, because the goal might be or could be to make the country a better place, and not merely to follow Supreme Court rulings.

There have been many at various times, and it also depends on your values, obviously. It also depends on whether you’re looking at things in specific times as opposed to generally.

There have been many times when many mainstream Democrats were pro-censorship but most Republicans were not.

Then there are other situations that I think are edge cases and therefore interesting. For example, Obamacare did make life better for real numbers of Americans, but it also guaranteed that we wouldn’t be looking at universal healthcare for a few more decades, if ever. And that was a law pushed for and passed by Democrats. Of course you could argue that it’s better than nothing, maybe it was, but medical debt is far worse now than it ever has been, and predictably so. So then you wonder why Democrats pushed for it, and we all know the answer to that, corruption. Of course they would say that it’s the best they could do, but is that even true? We’ll never find out, cuz they didn’t try.

So how do you rate rate these gray area situations? Things that are better than nothing but worse than a lot, but the politicians are only voting for them because they are corrupt.

What propaganda are you even talking about? It sounds like you’re trying to continue a discussion by ignoring the comment that says the discussion is pointless.

Nobody really believes Musk is being shut out of the administration. Trump and Musk lie constantly. Of course they’re lying about this.

Right right that’s true, we should focus on the future. But if you’re too blind to realize that most Washington Democrats are never going to help make things better, you need to look at the past more.

We got where we are for many reasons, which definitely include the actions of Democratic president and congresspeople over the last three decades. Those people brought us where we are, with Republican help of course, so we would be fools to expect any better from them going forward.

A few of those bullet points make the classic blunder of US election conversation, ignoring the electoral college.

For example, Democrats who realized they were not in a swing state and stayed home didn’t actually make anything worse. They were using their brains. Maybe they didn’t stay home, maybe they were actually going to their job and making money. So when you’re looking at total national turnout, it actually doesn’t tell you anything useful.