You say this as if the side you're advocating for didn't start the war by killing over a thousand civilians.
Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?
My point equally applies to everyone who condones violence to achieve some end goal. Jeanette Rankin was vilified for her lone dissenting vote against war, yet decades later she is among the few of her contemporaries to have a statue in the Capitol to honor her dedication to pacifism.
You are effectively saying that the indiscriminate slaughter of the Japanese civilian population was justified, due to the actions of a few Japanese leaders. In my opinion, there is no justification for violence against civilians.
Notice that we have a holiday for MLK, and Indians have a holiday to celebrate Gandhi. Something deep inside all of us knows that pacifism is “correct”.
Why are you surprised that people who sympathize with terrorists are called terrorists sympathizers?
Roughly 75% of Palestinians support terrorism (the number changes with every survey but it's consistently over 50%).
The lady in Minneapolis was using her car as a weapon to impede law enforcement operations. That's not really terrorism; insurrection would be a more accurate description. But she certainly wasn't a good person deserving of any sympathy.
> The lady in Minneapolis was using her car as a weapon to impede law enforcement operations.
A hysterical take like this isn't really credible. "Obstruction", sure, but calling a stopped vehicle a "weapon" because it's slightly in the way defies the English language to the point where you damage your own credibility.
It would be equivalent to call this comment a "weapon" I'm using to impede you announcing your opinion unopposed.
She's absolutely deserving of sympathy; she was killed unjustly. We don't have a law on the books allowing capital punishment for parking a vehicle somewhere law enforcement finds it inconvenient. Just because you happen not to agree with her actions at the time, illegal or no, doesn't imply "and therefore she deserved death". I suggest you consider the consequences to your own self of people applying your own logic to you, and how long you would last if this was the general state of affairs.
Claiming Arstechnica is jumping the gun is pretty generous to them. They are deliberately lying. OpenAI's default policy is not to share user data without a subpoena. This is standard; every company does this. No reasonable person would position this as "selectively hiding" data. Yet that is exactly how the propagandists at Arstechnica described OpenAI in their headline.
> OpenAI's default policy is not to share user data without a subpoena.
As noted in the article, the plaintiffs assert that OpenAI's terms of service state the content belongs to the user, and now it belongs to the user's estate.
So it's not (yet) a question of subpoenas, but about that contract.
Their TOS says the copyright belongs to the user. But I don't see anything in the TOS saying that OpenAI is committed to delivering a copy of the data to the users estate.
True, but it does constrain what justification OpenAI may (credibly) put forward as it navigates in the paired realms of legality and public-relations. AFAIK there's still a lot of temporizing "we are reviewing this" from the company, but that probably can't last forever.
In other words, it makes a difference for OpenAI in deciding between choices such as "we'd love to help but legally can't" or "we could but we won't because we don't want to."
I agree with that speculation, but if you keep your launch chain of command short enough (as the US does), nukes can also be a deterrent to a palace coup; doubly so for a foreign-backed one.
There's still a lot of information coming out, a lot of it conflicting, so that's hard to say.
And frankly, the Venezuelan military is absolutely tiny and has been facing the same economic issues as the rest of the country. They have 24 F-16s, but rumor is none of them work anymore, maybe some SU-30s, but those would be shot down pretty much as soon as they were scrambled. There was pretty heavy bombing before hand to knock out AA. And they bombed Chavez's tomb, which is quite a dick move of there wasn't any AA there; blowing up a graveyard for shits and giggles on an op is some shit even cartels have a little bit more respect than to do.
IDK, the whole thing seems like equally could have been mostly what it says on the tin, with no more than the normal intelligence HUMINT/SIGINT/*INT cloak and dagger crap to have the right intelligence.
> And they bombed Chavez's tomb, which is quite a dick move of there wasn't any AA there
Is that confirmed? because i think that would be a textbook example of a war crime.
I think people are suspicious because Maduro allegedly didnt seem to make it to a bunker in time, which if things are being bombed and helicopters are showing up on radar, one would think he would have sufficient time to get to some secure room, which in turn would delay things enough for reenforcements to arrive.
I think some of the suspicion is that we are talking about helicopters not fighter jets, which seem like they would be easy to take out even with how degraded their military is. But idk
> One image claiming to show the tomb actually shows the aftermath of a real US strike on the nearby Cagigal Observatory. The observatory is reportedly used by the General Command of the Bolivarian Militia branch of the Venezuelan military.
> We’ve also seen a viral image claiming to show extensive damage to the mausoleum but this appears to be an an AI-manipulated version of a real picture of the building published in 2013.
> Plus, the Hugo Chavez Foundation posted its own videos on Monday to show people the tomb was intact and called on people in Venezuela not to spread speculation.The videos displayed Monday’s date on a phone before zooming in on the Cuartel de la Montaña 4F to show there was no visible damage to the building.
I think by "this kind of operation" he means extrajudicially removing a sitting president (legitimate or not) of another country for trial elsewhere. Not cyber attack or espionage.
Oh, so the commenter is not actually talking about the BGP anomalies at all? He's just hijacking the comment section to advocate for nuclear proliferation?
I wish I could argue the "regulate" point but you failed to provide even a single example AI regulation you want to see enforced. My guess is the regulation you want to see enacted for AI is nowhere close to being analogous with the regulation currently in place for knives.
And the poster upthread used "regulate" for that reason, I presume.
> I wish I could argue the "regulate" point but you failed to provide even a single example AI regulation you want to see enforced.
It's OK to want something to be regulated without a proposal. I want dangerous chemicals regulated, but I'm happy to let chemical experts weigh in on how rather than guessing myself. I want fecal bacterial standards for water, but I couldn't possibly tell you the right level to pick.
If you really need a specific proposal example, I'd like to see a moratorium on AI-powered therapy for now; I think it's a form of human medical experimentation that'd be subject to licensing, IRB approval, and serious compliance requirements in any other form.
Oh that's great! How did I not know about zapper?! (Usually on desktop I remove annoying things in inspector by just deleting the HTML element manually, but on mobile I usually just closed the site. Glad to have a nice solution now!)
Content providers knowing when I watch their content is not concerning to me. They're on the other side of a transaction with me; they have as much a right to store the details of the transaction as I do. Even Blockbuster had that information.
What's concerning is when third parties start snooping on transactions that they are not involved in.
The obvious outcome of increased security and scanning to get into schools is what happened at Annunciation where the shooter just shot from outside the security area since all of those people still gather and walk past unsecured areas.
Cops killed a lot of people with negligible effect on crime. You're making an assertion that needs some support in light of the track record of US policing.
In many ways, yes. With guns specifically, the Supreme Court (in opinions authored by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, believe it or not) has set a precedent that there are some government-controlled "sensitive places" within which it is reasonable and prudent to place restrictions on firearms. Legislative assemblies, courthouses, government buildings, etc.
So not even the most conservative justices buy into the idea that Americans have a right to bear arms everywhere.
In my experience, juniors are absolutely terrified of asking any sort of question at all during a meeting. Senior engineers are far more likely to ask interesting, useful questions.
We hire juniors so that we can offload easy but time-consuming work on them while we focus on more important or more difficult problems. We also expect that juniors will eventually gain the skills to solve the more difficult problems as a result of the experience they gain performing the easy tasks.
If we stop hiring juniors now, then we won't have any good senior engineers in 5-10 years.
Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?
reply