I went shopping for a new bed the other day and hadn't for decades. So I got some future shock when I found out that they now not only have wifi and bluetooth, but also artificial intelligence. The salesman pitched me an $11,000 Smart Bed. Fascinating. Call me a Luddite but I honestly prefer a dumb bed.
I was standing at a Home Depot self-checkout, looking all over for an employee to help me with an item, finding nobody. The guy next to me was waiting too and I asked him "does anyone work here any more?"
He said "I guess we do."
I wonder how they're going to get me to stock shelves and clean the restroom.
And then there is my local home depot which seems to have a 1:1 ratio of employees to shoppers much of the time. And they're all so chipper and helpful. Almost too much so.
I got hired for a remote job in 2011, and have yet to meet any co-workers in the flesh, including the guy who hired me. I've spent plenty of time looking at him, talking to him. I've seen him at his worst and best. We know lots of little details of each other's lives. The fact that I've never touched or smelled him doesn't seem like any kind of problem.
From the graphs in the article it's clear that the omitted days were very close to each other, almost a vertical line in some. That seems to indicate that these are from particular events, rather than just chopping out inconveniently high readings that happen to cross the line. Not that this rule can't be abused, but these spikes look like relatively isolated events that local enforcers may have no control over.
A two-state solution is contrary to the policy of the government elected by the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Election. No further elections have occurred. Recent events indicate that this government still prefers a one-state solution.
Also, from the article above, it sounds like the people who elected Hamas don't support Hamas' policies regarding Israel, and they hoped Hamas would change their stance. Instead they elected Hamas because they promised to root out corruption. Wishful thinking? Parallels to Trump?
strictly speaking hamas started as muslim charity organization doing social and educational work.
hamas now has a couple of wings, political and military. people probably hoped that they will end up with political agenda (which still kinda genocidal towards israel and jews), but they ended up with military wing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
Trump did not start wars and made a good start at ending some, that is quite a big difference. He did not do well on draining the swamp though which is croaking and gibbering even more now like a scene from some old-timey nature flick. You do have to agree to it being a good plan though, draining that place would be the beginning to the solution of a lot of problems.
To the down-voters the question why they - you - think the swamp is not in need of drainage. Do you not agree with the term 'swamp' (because...) or do you just like the critters who inhabit it? Just pressing that down-arrow to get a different opinion greyed-out is not conducive to the discourse. Speak up, don't vote down.
I didn't downvote you, and I agree that it's annoying when people downvote without commenting.
I think the point I was making is that Trump (like Hamas) makes promises that he doesn't keep, and people really should have seen it coming, based on his previous behaviour.
He said he was going to drain the swamp and help little business owners who have been hurt by the "elites". But we have seen that Trump himself is the biggest swamp dweller, and he is one of the worst "elites" himself. After he was elected, he helped out his fellow elites by reducing their taxes.
I agree on Trump not keeping his promise to "drain the swamp", the results of which are clear to see. I do not think a comparison between Trump and Hamas holds in any other way, not even by saying "both lie" - that is like saying Muhammed Ali is like Hitler because "both breathe". The current US president has also shown to be a prodigious liar as has Trump's predecessor and his alike so it seems to be something endemic to the people who make it to that position.
Think of requiring a minimum amount of hallucination in AI output as a safety mechanism, like mixing the distinctive odor into a propane tank. The odor is a signal that there's a gas leak that must be dealt with. A high minimum amount of hallucinations is a signal that the source is untrustworthy and must be checked. Hallucinations may turn out to be a feature that protects against over reliance. And defers the need for a Butlerian jihad.
> ... and is clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video that has no valid “free speech” argument,
Strong disagree. That kind of content is very effective at changing attitudes and shifting political pressures, which is the core purpose of first amendment protections. I completely understand not wanting to see it, but disagree with preventing others from choosing to see and share it.
The idea that content that is "clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video" is justification for censorship is backwards, since that content has particularly large potential to drive change.
"According to Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act of 1976, no “idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery” is eligible for copyright protection."
"Copyright law generally protects the fixation of an idea in a “tangible medium of expression,” not the idea itself, or any processes or principles associated with it." -- https://strebecklaw.com/idea-expression/
By tokenizing the data an AI bypasses the tangible particular expression that can be copyrighted under the Copyright Act, and takes away just the concepts. On generation, those concepts are converted back into tangible human expression that's unlikely to be protected by a copyright.
The indemnification means that Google engineers have convinced Google lawyers that this is in fact the case.
I've been watching too many Baldur's Gate Youtube videos on how to build a character, and one guy talks about the "power spike" when your character gets a particularly useful ability, like an extra bonus action per turn.
The biggest power spike of genus Homo may have been attaching a rock to the end of a stick. The spear changed our ancestors from sub-apex prey to predators ready to take on a lion in its cave. From meat to masters of all we surveyed. The next power surge of that magnitude may have been nukes.
Yet it couldn't save neanderthalensis from sapiens.
> Yet it couldn't save neanderthalensis from sapiens.
This is what I don’t understand. Neanderthals were strong and smart. Did Homo sapiens kill them outright I.e. war? Or was it more of a outcompete and outbreed situation?
Neanderthals were built for the winter and for the colder periods of the earth's weather. Cold temperatures would also lead to smaller group sizes. It then seems likely that Neanderthal groups were picked off one by one by large groups of homo sapiens. If you have a 1:100 or even a 1:10 numbers advantage (when you opponent's group doesn't exceed ~80 people), it often doesn't matter how advanced or smart your opponent is. They're going to get flattened no matter what they do. Bloodlust combined with very large group sizes usually leads to lower individual quality but there's a limit to how many one guy could pick off. After the 15th or the 20th guy you're likely to get hit a couple of times, no matter how skilled you are. And after that you're done for, no strongman can stand even a 10-man dogpile.
Considering how low population densities were back in those days I’m not sure violent competition was really that necessary.
Even during the neolithic when farmers from the middle east started migrated into Europe they seemingly just lived side by side with the local hunter gathers for hundreds of years. As the farmer populations were growing at an extremely fast pace (for premodern times) eventually they started moving into the areas inhabited by hunter gathers but according to current evidence these societies just merged and there was no large scale genocide or something like that.
Back in the Neanderthal days population growth was much slower so this process probably took much longer but it’s not inconceivable that climate change and some sort of assimilation were the primary reason why the Neanderthals went extinct instead of violent conflict.
Oh, I don't mean conflict with other Neanderthals. I meant conflict with Homo Sapiens, who by all accounts seem to be much more comfortable with larger group sizes, and aren't cold-adapted.
Yes, violent competition isn't conducive to low population densities (especially in an environment as unforgiving as the Neanderthals') but that doesn't mean another larger group couldn't invade. After all, changing "humanoid" group sizes (aka "Culture") would take much longer than the introduction of the Holocene.
> Or was it more of a outcompete and outbreed situation?
There’s a lot of evidence we more or less absorbed the neanderthal population. Old school tribal genocide style – you win the war/battle, kill the men, take their wives. We don’t know if that’s exactly how it happened, but it stands to reason that pre-historic tribal warfare wasn’t much different than the more recent tribal warfare we do have records about.
my laymen's understanding: the weather changed, and with it, forests retreated and plains came about. Neanderthals hunted with handheld spears, ambushing pray in the forest (evidenced by denser bones on one half of the body). Homo sapiens were more adept at plains hunting and throwing spears and one population outgrew the other. Cross breeding eventually eradicated the former as evidenced by the fragments of Neanderthal DNA present in the modern population. I've also heard it said that sapiens were more social, leading to better communication between groups.
It must have been both, right? In the sense that higher populations would tend to be helpful when fights started, better resources lead to higher population, and winning fights leads to better access to resources.
You can only do that with a very small aperture - otherwise you're capturing the scene from slightly different angles across the aperture, and if you want all those images from different angles to "line up" you have to select a depth of interest. This is why focus is a thing.
A very small aperture is not so good for surveillance, because it doesn't let much light in. Good low light performance or wide depth of field: choose one.
