Skip Navigation

Posts
4
Comments
257
Joined
3 yr. ago

Sorry about that.

  • I didn't mean to imply it was scientific, any more than what OpenAI is doing is scientific. It's all commercial.

    I'm not sure what the rest of your comment is supposed to mean. They are chasing AGI. That doesn't mean they'll create it, of course, but that's what they're aiming at.

  • Yes, but McConnell doesn't have a job like yours. If I'm remembering correctly, he's not even running again, so there really is very little consequence for him not doing his job.

  • From your link:

    Essentially, as long as they have reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence in endangered, they can legally enter the premises. 

    Internet conspiracies aren't "reasonable grounds".

    I invite you again to consider the implications of your suggestion.

    Again, it's completely normal to charge and hold someone for a lesser charge that's provable when they're suspected of a more serious charge, that is honestly the norm in the American legal system

    It is a miscarriage of justice to hold someone against their will for a crime they haven't even been charged with by charging them with a lesser crime and then setting a bond that doesn't reflect the crime they're being charged with. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it was outrage that KY is still allowing it.

  • Do you have a source for this?

    Running an LLM is significantly less resource intensive than training it, and all indicators are that these data centers are being built to keep up the breakneck pace of companies racing to create AGI.

  • I know this is difficult for people to read, but online conspiracies aren't evidence.

  • I invite you to really think of the implications of your suggestion.

    Start at "send law enforcement to search a residence to see if a corpse is in the house being abused".

    Edit:

    The amount of bond is likely because that dude most likely killed his wife

    Weird that he wasn't charged with that.

  • I'm assuming this is a joke about McConnell being dead, but, as a sidebar, holy hell $500k bond for a non violent crime?

  • What crime do you think would apply here?

    Edit: Don't just throw out stuff you heard on law and order; provide the applicable legal code for the state law.

    Unless the point was to encourage the governor to abuse his power like Trump does.

  • Why not just read the article? It's pretty short.

    Summary:

    NYC has childcare vouchers for people earning less than 85% of the median income (which works out to <114k/yr for a family of 4). Depending on how much lower than that amount they make, it can cost anywhere from $0/wk to $15/wk.

    Mamdani got rid of the copay entirely. Now it's free for anyone that qualifies for the voucher.

    There are about 100k families using this service, but only ~22k paid a copay based on their income.

    This change will cost the city ~$5.2M.

  • Source?

  • Make your case.

  • The only people that think AI isn't a thing are people terrified about AI being a thing.

  • If you're not a lawyer I doubt you even know enough about the law to determine what counts as a crime, and you certainly don't have all the evidence.

    Here, I'll toss you what should be an easy one: what crime?

  • I have no problem trying new things. I just often immediately hate the new things. However, I will try it again after enough time had passed.

    This is literally all you can do. People have very little control over what they like (be that food, music, movies, books, whatever) all anyone can do is be willing to try new things, and occasionally retry, the things they don't like.

    I will eat pretty much anything, but strongly dislike carrots for their taste and oatmeal for its texture. I haven't have any occasion to retry oatmeal but I retry carrots pretty frequently.

  • Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol

    I'll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it's a fact. You can be accused of literally anything.

    I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn't working.

    Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not.

  • So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you're a thief?

    Think this through.

  • Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore??

    You can't just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell.

  • You said "hidden cameras aren't common" but cameras that can be easily hidden are extremely common. If I misunderstood what you meant when you said they weren't common, I apologize.

    No, I don't because I trust my doctor.

    Which was my original point; it's interesting that people have two seemingly different types of trust with their doctor. They, apparently, trust them not to be a secret creep, but they don't seem to trust them not to be a blatant creep.

    It reminds me of some saying I read once that goes something like "If you tell a person there are a billion stars in the night sky, they'll take your word for it, but if you tell that person there's wet paint on a bench, they'll have to touch it to believe you."

    It's just an interesting phenomenon, that the same person can be trusted and not trusted regarding essentially the same action.

  • What do you think of when you see the phrase "hidden camera" and why doesn't that include a concealed phone?