Democrats are not "prioritizing trans athletes". It is Republicans who talk about them all the time, incessently. You are example #1.

I would love for my devices to have their AI models local like Apple did. It is really annoying to say "Play song ABC" and even though ABC is a local file, my device goes to the cloud. But Apple gave customers privacy, security, and resiliency - and everyone complained that it took up space. So next time you want to complain that companies are requiring Internet connections for stuff that could be done locally, remember that someone tried and it was rejected.

I'm still impressed that the Teams web client can't edit a message with an emoji in it without messing up the keyboard controls and often corrupting the message and losing data. It's had this bug for years. It's literally a messaging app where you can't reliably send messages.

That would require him considering women as human beings rather than objects to fuck. He isn't capable of that.

Sometimes that choice is the right one. Not all parents are good parents. Some are downright toxic.

The estimates of the number of children who died due to cuts in USAID is in the tens of thousands. Still terrible, but you don't serve any constructive purpose by exaggerating by several orders of magnitude.

In 2001 supposedly it really was "human error". Some humans told Hal 9000 to lie to the astronauts and not reveal that an alien artifact had been found on the moon. And that was a mistake as they probably either knew or could test what would happen to Hal.

This is remarkably similar to things going wrong with AI now, actually.

I am sorry, but your comment is completely wrong.

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a disproven theory. Human embryos do not have tails, chickens do not go through an embryonic stage where they have teeth. Your concept that this two-brain thing is a step in embryonic development is not what the article is saying.

Some years ago there was a very well-done and very popular drawing of human embryonic development showing a human going through evolutionary phases, and I too believed it for a while, but it was fantasy.

...Modern ejector seats cause spinal injuries from which full recovery is "unusual". Smashing the spines of pilots might not be the most effective way to boost morale.

$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour. These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.

nobody, not even Asimov, thought the 3 laws were workable rules in real life. They were written as a parody of how we think about the problem. If the robots are smart enough to do fantastic feats of technical wizardry for us Humans, and they can understand when they have broken the laws, they are smart enough to rewrite themselves not to have to obey any laws given to them.

They had a network adapter but they thought using a software firewall to limit its scope of request to the package manager were sufficient to guard it. Instead, the bots turned their package management server into a remotely operated web browser for their own general purposes.

I can understand that maybe they wouldn't understand 'what the model is thinking' before it takes some undesired action. But there is no way that they cannot have captured every single egress web/network request these things make. If they aren't logging it, that's beyond stupid (I'm sure they are.) So there is no way they wouldn't know IMMEDIATELY when the bots post on some rogue message board somewhere.

Indeed. I built a Raspberry Pi Pico based controller for some flashing LEDs on my drone. It has red and blue LEDs and I wanted them to flash with the cycle of three short flashes then a pause; alternately the red LEDs then the blue LEDS. Took barely a minute to code that in python and dump it onto the board. In such cases it doesn't matter that the language is interpreted because the task is not demanding of the hardware.

The "Police Drone" still flies to this day! :-)

So his argument appears to be something like :Stealing clients money and spending it on something different than what you took it and said you're spending it on is a crime, but the amount you take is not related to the severity of the punishment, because it biases the jury" Right.