AI can be a force multiplier for humans, but often can’t replace them. The current usage is often idiotic at best.

E.g. excluding the issue of data misuse, an AI system could be extremely helpful to doctors. It could flag possible issues, complications and unusual conditions in a way that would otherwise require a deep dive by a specialist doctor. A doctor or nurse could then parse the results for useful points, while filtering out hallucinations.

Initially. It’s a link aggregator and discussion site, like reddit, but far more independent.

If they query it. It runs on a system a bit like how email works. Rather than 1 big monolithic system, it’s a bunch of small ones linked together. A federation of small services all acting as 1 whole. In practice it’s fairly transparent, just like you don’t care who’s hosting an email address, you can just email it.

It also makes it a lot more resistant to takeover and manipulation by big business. It can resist the Nazis bar problem better, like what happened to twitter. (Optional depending on the person involved).

The first gives them the basic idea. The second gives them a basic understanding of the structure, without overwhelming them, or panicking them with complexity.

Everyone now knows that email just works, but has lots of different companies involved. It makes a good comparison for how federation can work well online.

Ironically, it actually did its job pre WWII.

Chamberlain realised he had fucked up. Britain didn’t have the forces to actually resist the Nazis. Appeasement was to buy them time to rearm. When the war actually started, Chamberlain fell on his proverbial sword, to give Churchill a clean slate and a functional military to work with.

AI can be a force multiplier for doctors. The catch is it needs to be doctor led. It’s quite trivial for a doctor to dismiss the obvious hallucinations. If it also points them towards more subtle signs they would potentially miss, then that’s a net win.

It’s a very British style protest. Farage tried to turn an investigation/resignation/bielection into a media circus. The larger parties instead stepped aside to let the clown in to deal with him.

Mexico had a wrestler run (and win!).

I think it was in relation to having private tutors.

The rich had a private education, with a few years at “public school” to make contacts and learn to socialise with their peers.

It predated universal education systems.

Didn’t Mexico have a similar issue a year or so ago?

Someone ran and was elected under his mexican wrestling persona. He attended parliament with his mask on. He insisted, since he was elected under his masked persona, he would attend parliament under it.

He originally did it because cartels had targeted MPs, and he ran on an anti cartel manifesto.

I’m scientifically trained (physics specifically), I’m also an atheist myself. I believe, based on a preponderance of evidence, that no creator being exists. The exception possibly being the simulation hypothesis. However, without specific evidence of that, the chances are extremely slim so I default to the null, aka atheism.

Interestingly, science has very few “facts”. Facts are mostly a thing of mathematics , which can create rigorous proofs. There is a lot of evidence in science, along with predictions and theories, but few facts.

E.g. I don’t know, for a fact, that the sun will rise in 1 year’s time. The evidence says it’s practically a certainty, but it is not a true “fact”. It’s a prediction based on an absurdly large evidence base.

Atheism does require belief. Even if it’s only in the axioms of physics.

As per my analogy, bald is not a haircut, but an absence of hair. You would be hard pressed to find a bald person who complained about it being lumped in with haircuts in a form.

Recognising the limits to our own knowledge is an important part of finding the truth.

Oh and the options “on fire” and “not on fire” obviously belong in the same grouping, even if they are different things.

Atheism is as much a belief as bald is a haircut. Technically slightly different, but makes sense to throw into the same box.

Learning that being right doesn’t make you not an arsehole is a lesson too many of us had to learn the hard way.

The satanic temple’s 7th tenet sums it up quite well.

Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

10x per year is still better than never.

Given that they are scrabbling around like drug addicts looking for anything they’ve split, including checking the cracks in the floorboards…

For some models, it’s obvious they’ve long scrapped the erotic fan fic sites!

I’m glad we agree.

And how does making sarcasm explicitly obvious affect any of those?

It’s akin to clear cutting the forest around a castle. We lose something, but it helps draw a line in the sand. At this point, we need some sort of defence line.

I reserve the right to believe what people say. I also reserve the right to not roll that back when they say it was “just a joke”.

I’m in 2 minds on this. It reads (and looks) like the police were dealing with deliberate civil disobedience, against a legal event. (Yes I feel dirty describing it like that, but it’s true).

Looking at the video, it looks like a twitch response that they reigned in immediately. The police officer had protestors all around him and was likely feeling defensive. It shouldn’t have happened, but it was a quick human/training failure.

As for the police stopping them at all. The best we can hope for now, is for the police being neutral. I would hope that the police would step in, if it was a bunch of right wingers trying to invade a gay pride event. It’s hard to argue the reverse, when the shoe is on the other foot.

And just to clarify, I’m well on the side of the protestors here. It’s just one of the things you need to accept if you’re pushing the law. I’ve played run-around with the police at protests myself before (years back now, unfortunately). I knew the police had to oppose us, and accepted that fact.

At this point, unfortunately yes. Even if it’s only to stop dog whistling being hidden behind “it was only a joke” or “it was obviously sarcastic”.

It also helps non native English speakers.

The sea doesn’t make the sky blue. The sky simply is blue for most of the day.

The sky is blue due to differential scattering. Blue light scatters more than red. That’s also why sunsets are red. It’s the remaining light passing through the atmosphere.

Water is often blue due to reflecting the sky. It also has a slight blue tint. This is only obvious in large, deep bodies. It’s why the sea around some tropical islands looks so blue. They are volcanoes, so the water drops off rapidly. That much water has a significant blue colour. The sky then adds to it.