I thought I remembered hearing they were trans but I didn’t see it mentioned in the article I looked up to refresh my memory. Article did mention they were both black women, though.
Why vaguely talk around the reason instead of just quoting it?
“I don’t know that officers had the opportunity to direct those vehicles specifically one way or another.” -Police Chief Peterson
The counter protestors weren’t even allowed to park their vehicles nearby. How is it that they can “direct” all of those vehicles without issue, but this one is somehow undirectable? This is some pretty clear bullshit made up after the fact to justify protecting this guy from a justifiably angry mob. If he’s not charged with anything then he basically did get off scot-free arrested or not.
This is the guy who got saved from an ass beating in MN, shoved into a stranger’s car, and wouldn’t tell the driver who he was or why everyone was trying to kick his ass. Just kept telling his rescuers that Trump “saved his life”.
They kicked him out a few blocks later.
I wouldn’t call Matt Yglesias a tank or accuse him of having thoughts.
An AI booster is too lazy or stupid to read and understand something they have very strong opinions about? Im shocked.
This would be even funnier than just the whole slogan on the shirt. Gives it a little bit of comedic timing.
While the GOP shamelessly uses the power of government to oppress their ideological enemies, the Dems are more interested in “moving past” their counterpart’s crimes, maintaining a healthy GOP, and promoting bipartisanship. Which is why George Bush is a free man and on friendly terms with the Obamas.
They produce(d) very similar products; bionic eyes. The situations are pretty directly comparable.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete There’s a bunch of other articles if you search for “bionic eye obsolete” or similar stuff. Turns out we had them more like 20 years ago.
I’d say it’s more like a way to describe a certain kind of algorithm. One that adapts in some way to inputs that defy simple classification. Ultimately you’re probably just safe to replace AI in modern news and internet discussion with LLM or CNN.
They had something like these in the US like ten years ago but the company(companies?) that made them went under and the people who got them lost their vision again as the bionic eyes degraded and couldn’t be repaired. Giving sight to the blind was not profitable, I guess.
Like most things, meaning depends on context. In the most common context of “news about AI” we’re talking about generative AI: image/video generators, LLMs, and to a lesser degree coding assistants. If you want to know more about what these technologies share in common, look up what a “perceptron” is and how it works.
More generally AI could mean anything from a neural network based approach to problem solving, to a completely deterministic, hand coded heuristic. A pure decision tree could be AI in the case of video game NPCs, for example.
My “comrades” are like people who signed up to the same email server, were not all familiar with each other. There’s not some meeting or private chat I can bring the matter to.
Is there anybody of significance, or significant number of people, saying these things? Or are we letting the trolls dictate the worst takes for everyone?
I don’t know of anybody who could be accurately described as “tankie” who would be against anything he’s done. They might say it doesn’t go far enough, but I wouldn’t describe that as “butthurt”. Where are you encountering comments like that?
Every time I see an experiment like this it’s wildly successful and then never made into any kind of law or permanent social program.
Giving two, conflicting explanations is a sign of someone telling a lie. He says they couldn’t direct them, then says they consulted the mayor and successfully directed them away. Which was it?
He says they spoke to the mayor, but not when they did. Would they genuinely have the time or inclination to consult him in a rapidly escalating situation like that? He doesn’t even say what the mayor said, just kind of implies it by planting that sentence around what seems to be his own opinions.
If you’re so concerned about misinformation then maybe don’t believe that cops are doing anything but covering their ass. You don’t need to give the benefit of the doubt to them, they’ve absolutely not earned it.