Cosmic Cleric

From the article…

But while many think that YouTube’s system isn’t great, Trendacosta also said that she “can’t think of a way to build the match technology” to improve it, because “machines cannot tell context.” Perhaps if YouTube’s matching technology triggered a human review each time, “that might be tenable,” but “they would have to hire so many more people to do it.”

That’s what it comes down to, right there.

Google needs to spend money on people, and not just rely on the AI automation, because it’s obviously getting things wrong, its not judging context correctly.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Nooo not the alpacas🫣

“Coming soon to a species near you!”

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Didn’t know what that stood for, I had to look it up.

Constantly as wrong as possible about their own stupid links

Starting to feel willful, honestly

I don’t recognize that second quote, as it wasn’t stated by me. Could you elaborate?

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

ACAB

Didn’t know what that stood for, I had to look it up.

I’m going to hope that’s wrong, and that it’s just a certain percentage in any professional caste that has bad apples.

I am willing to believe that the percentage of bad apples is larger in law enforcement, only because of the type of people who would gravitate to that type of position that would give them control over others, and how much money is spent on monitoring law enforcement personnel by the government for legal and ethics compliance, as well as mental suitability to do the job.

And no need to reply to me with every bad thing that’s ever been done by police officers. I read them all, here, as well as elsewhere. I just can’t subscribe to the 100% pop that ACAB stands for.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

From the article…

The FTC’s three Democratic members were in favor of adopting the regulation, while its two Republican members were against it.

… and …

The FTC’s rule does not include a salary threshold, but it has an exception for noncompetes when a business is sold.

The final rule also allows existing non-competes to be enforced for senior executives. But all other such contracts would be rendered unenforceable when the rule is implemented

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Costed insurance 28 thousand dollars for a procedure that normally costs a couple hundred at most (tooth pull).

Would a doctor do a tooth pull, or a dentist? I don’t think it’s a reasonable expectation to expect a doctor to pull a tooth, but instead a dentist would do so.

Also, one thing you have to realize is that they don’t look at the cost just at the atomic per incident level, but they look at it through the whole life of the customer/patient.

They play the odds, and they do literal risk management, when deciding how to spend money and when to spend money, specially for big money spending like operations.

So in your case it might have been a matter of a risk management decision, of the odds of you getting better without having to have the tooth pulled and spending the money to do so would be good, but you just got unlucky.

Cost money/time to cure people. Cheaper to just manage conditions.

I question whether you’ve ever actually participated in an election before.

Actually, I’ve voted in every election I was asked to.

The deck is stacked and the game is rigged.

First link is about someone on parole voting, when they can’t.

Second link is about someone who got caught when trying to do fraudulent voting activities.

The third link is a person with a prior felony conviction (that she pleaded guilty to), that is ineligible to seek office, trying to seek office/vote.

Those are three one-offs, in the margins. None of those prevent the system from working overall.

You’re grasping at straws.

Participate.

You don’t think if people stop just standing by the sidelines watching, but instead participate, specifically pushing back on their Representatives and their Senators, asking for change, that things wouldn’t change? At all?

Congress does what it does because we all sit on our asses and do nothing about it, except maybe go vote every once in awhile.

They have no respect for us, because they don’t see us as participating in the system, only companies that give them money are seen in their eyes to be participating.

“Democracy already failed.” is total bullshit, plain and simple, and it’s rhetoric that doesn’t help solve any problems.

Participate.

Americans don’t want to read the writing on the wall. Democracy already failed. We’ve simply refused to acknowledge we’re living in the rubble.

We’re not there yet, calm yourself. Your rhetoric doesn’t help.

Having said that, wake the fuck up people, participate.

Sounds hot.

You should see it in a bikini.

No, the targeting committee was very clear that the targets were selected mainly based on spectacle and effect.

That’s not my understanding at all, only just that having witnesses was a side effect, but not the primary reason.

From what I remember from watching documentaries there were military targets in the cities, I think (don’t hold me to it) bomb making factories.

Feel free to pass on some links if you know otherwise, as history is always a learning experience. (See edit below.)

Edit: Looking at the Wiki page, under the section about targeting, it mentions this about Hiroshima…

Hiroshima, an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters

… and…

Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage.

The wiki article does mention what you’re stating as well, so in essence we’re both right, though I would still argue that the military objective was primary, and the spectacle as you call it was secondary, even if it was a close secondary.

why drop the nukes when they can just bomb the manufacturing hubs without incurring as much civilian death

That’s just it, they had been, for quite a while, but the Japanese would not capitulate.

So just bombing military targets with regular ordinance wasn’t enough. The type of bombing was a signal and a message in and of itself.

That to me seems like the same logic being used by the israelis to justify killing the Palestinians.

The difference though is the availability of precise targeting of the enemy versus the civilians.

Do you potentially end the lives of a million of your own drafted citizens just for more precise targeting of the enemy? One hell of a moral dilemma for any leader to decide.

Its never justified to go after the civilian population and non combatants.

Absolutely agree with this, and one of the reasons I’m upset personally with Israel right now is that they are fairly infamous for being able to precisely target their enemy when they want to, and hence what they’ve done in Gaza to the civilian population that had nothing to do with the conflict is just horrific.

Having said all that, there is a nuance in the two scenarios, they are not equal.

But to say that made it okay to drop two nukes instantly killing thousands of civilians is not okay in any case.

My understanding was they were actually attacking manufacturing for the war, it’s just that an atom bomb is not that discriminatory, and that all the military-only targets had already been bombed out of existence by that point.

Not saying it was right, just explaining it wasn’t as black-and-white as you express.

Its Ukrainian Russian conscripts press ganged into the meat grinder

FTFY

Everyone who is #ProudlyAsshole keeps ignoring and/or skipping over the fact that in these scenarios that are being discussed that we’re talking about publically shared resources that are in short supply, be it a table in a crowded restaurant, or a parking space at a huge complex.

It really is rude to hog a shared resource. Use it, then move on. Quickly.

But when conservatives have their own big, invasive, and professionalized hatchet men teams, there’s a legit fear among Democrats that they will be more likely on the receiving end.

Which is why the Democrats should have put someone else up for re-election, someone who can defend themself well.

Though there’s a carve-out for game consoles.

That carve out is so blatant, and so obvious, that I’m surprised that actually exists.

It really puts a negative light on the politicians who wrote the law for all of the voters to see.

I really hope there’s some investigative reporting as to who wrote the law, and who wrote that clause, so we can identify them easier in the next election cycle.