That's true but it's just like with ICOs, the so-called Web3.0 and so on - there is a percentage of people aggressively promoting these, with a part of the community getting fascinated like with everything new, then with time novelty fades and people have a more balanced view of the new tech and these things get downvoted quickly.
The solution is a social one. Most of the reason it's a problem in the first place is people defending/propagating slop as if it's worth something. The quantity isn't so high that community moderation can't handle it if it becomes socially unacceptable.
One way to combat this would be to force users to stake something. Pay 10 bucks to your account and if you misbehave by spamming or posting only AI slop, you lose it. Brings with it other problems, of course.
That's a nonsense idea because it fails to define how low-quality undeclared slop (LQUS) can accurately even be classified. Also, if money is on the line, it will be taken away even when the article is not LQUS.
I agree, but there is a slight alteration of the proposal which could work rather well. Pay $10 to get in, but no change to the procedures by which your account is revoked. This puts a price on sock puppets, while almost any legitimate, normal user only wants one account, and gets it for a trivial fee. This may also relax the pressure to monetize through ads, which could have perks.
In fairness, the bigger problem as I see in comments is accusations of slop with zero evidence, often in an unfair attempt to suppress the takeaway message of an article.
Your comment hints at another problem, which is that allowing the cargo into a port possibly could be exploited as a loophole to break sanctions.
Yet another big problem is that cargo might be too low in value, or even undesirable. Like the cargo of Ammonium Nitrate that exploded in Beirut a few years ago (it had been taken off the docked ship which then sank in the port. The cargo was stored in the port, then stuck in legal and payment disputes, and the result was horrific).
This is interesting, I look forward to reading more. But I think it’s wrong, if you want to represent reality.
Real cities were all built in the past, for older vehicles, which moved at different speeds, and were controlled by drivers with different goals from today’s drivers.
So, if your game has bad and unsafe road designs, which have been partly retrofitted to reduce the worst problems, then that is accurate.
A game with optimal roads is not an accurate simulation of reality.
A professional modern road designer will simulate the expected movement of vehicles through a new or redesigned road, to try to discover major problems.
They look for problems with turning radius, visibility, stopping distances, and interactions with other road users.
I believe that a game designer could offer to do the same.
The game could draw a good algorithmic road shape first. But next offer the player an option to run a simulation of individual traffic movements, to discover serious issues, and let the player know about problems.
To the OP, I suggest this simulation approach, not trying to discover flawless algorithms. That’s not how it happens in the real world.
The simple absence of on the ground reports from a variety of independent sources tells me that these numbers should not be simply ignored.
If there’s nothing happening, then the obvious way for the authorities to prove that is to let observers in, and let independent information out. They do not do this, so I will take these reports of deaths more seriously.
They shouldn't be ignored, but they also should be taken with a massive grain of salt. This reporting has all the hallmarks of the US State Department manufacturing consent for yet another war.
After WMDs i honestly thought america learned to be a bit more skeptical of poorly sourced "pretext for war" stories which emerge in the context of a military build up.
E.g. like reading the sentence:
>TIME has been unable to independently verify these figures.
> >TIME has been unable to independently verify these figures.
> And going "hmmm".
Journalists couldn’t possibly independently verify large scale death counts, especially at this point.
That doesn’t mean they’re wrong or propaganda.
If you start “going hmmm” when journalists honestly report their own limitations then that’s just going to leave you more vulnerable to the psy-op peddlers who never give such disclaimers.
MediaZona is one example of an organization that uses a large diversity of sources to assemble what looks like a very accurate Russian soldier casualty count. Their process is excellent.
TIME magazine didnt do anything like that. They most likely got a call from the state department in between their Iran invasion planning meetings to say "hey, we've got a totally legit guy on the inside of rhe iranian ministry of health with an EXPLOSIVE story you wanna talk to him?"
That guy will be getting paid to risk his life talking to the enemy and he will know that he shouldnt disappoint.
The US paid all sorts of informants to provide information on WMDs and shockingly, they told the state department what it wanted to hear and TIME printed all of that nonsense too.
You can already see them in the videos raiding hospitals to "finish off" the wounded... Or you can watch videos of hundreds of bodies in plastic bags if you need further proof that this massacre is actually happening on that place on the earth.
That doesn't prove who went around murdering police officers and random people, and destroying hospitals, banks, police stations and ambulances - it only proves it happened at all.
It does prove who did it; when you see police officers, Hamas mercenaries, and IRGC forces shooting at people using machine guns, and then demand "bullet price" from the families of the dead before they return the corpses of their loved ones...
There's a Persian saying that goes: "You can wake up an asleep person, but those who pretend they're asleep can't be awaken." I feel sorry for you, have a nice day with your ignorance.
You mean these emails are more than just a first verification step to check that your email address exists and to confirm that you want to sign up as a new user?
The emails say things like "upgrade your trial account now" or "you might be interested in these other products". I have not seen any welcome or request to verify emails.
Unless you’ve got evidence to the contrary: this sounds most likely to be spam campaigns that’s being sent to millions of email addresses, from leaked lists or random generated.
I have evidence to the contrary: there is a real German Shopify account that I never signed up for (I don't even speak German), and these are real emails from Shopify.
There were multi-million device Microsoft BSOD outages in 2024 as well. It was mainly the bad Cloudstrike update debacle, but also a contemporaneous problem with Azure.
Luckily, It sounds like this new failure is recoverable by normal user action.
I think it might still refuse, but in your original test, German usually means a nationality, but African doesn’t.
I’m sure the jokes were terrible anyways
reply