Doesn't seem like his life is destroyed. It also seems like most people were unaware. I agree, in principle though. We should find that middle ground. The middle ground involves believing the victim and investigating.
The whole purpose of procedural fairness in trials os to protect the innocent against accusations. In sexual assault, it seems that the concept of procedural fairness is overriding it's purpose of protecting the accused.
Not that I'm aware of. In real life I know people who have been accused with no history also. It was proven true.
Not all accusations are true, but part of the lessons of #metoo was to believe the victims of sexual assault. Also, the abundance of literature on the subject. Sure, it could be a false accusation, so we shouldn't condemn him without investigation or trial bittnhats why there should be one.
Miatrials in the case of sexual assault just leaves an open question for both the accuser and accused. In some instances, a civil case is taken when the criminal case falls apart. Often the problem is it's just a he said, she said situation.
So, I believe her but also don't hold him accountable, if that makes sense. Absolutely, he should be held to account. That's my point. He hasn't been and there are questions about her not proceeding, that we don't know the answer to.
I'd never thought about the attorney working for free on the basis of the win. However, if she was a victim of a sexual assault, it could also be self sabotage as she psychologically is finding it hard to deal with or wants to avoid reliving it.
So, I'd still tend to believe her unless we have evidence otherwise or a jury of her peers says otherwise.
Cool, I can see it's a waste of time too if you're not able to appreciate other people's view or express yours beyond absolutisms. It's not a discussion when the only view you pay attention to is your own.
I'm no longer on that continent. Strange you're commenting on hangaries relations with Ukraine and the war without that level of familiarity with what's has been more widely part of commentary.
Here is a sample article going back to early in the war. You'll need to circumvent the paywall. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/11/orban-putin-hungary-russia-war-politics-eu/
In this case, it's a shame it didn't go to court. I don't want to defend an actual predator, but generally there are lots of accusations, not one person.
That's not to say that it didn't happen. It absolutely could have and we should give any victim the benefit of the doubt. The court case not proceeding due to a technicality doesn't seem like justice served for anyone nor for society.
It's fine you have that opinion. I disagree and so do many others. I've used ai to generate notes, checklists, letters,.emails, work templates etc.
The output was correct and valid in most cases. What about the foundation is rotten, in your view? The fact that it's based on other people's work being regurgitated, or the environmental concerns, or how big tech is trying to leverage it to be an arbiter of knowledge and computing power? All are valid concerns, but they don't mean the technology is inherently unusable or unethical.
Banning it because of the views of some is unfair on the views of others. I do think that marking it is appropriate, so that anyone who objects to its use can avoid it. I would be concerned that over time or becomes impossible to avoid though. However, that's the point of open source. People can fork projects at the point where there is no AI code (except in the case where that is purposefully obfuscated).
Heck Australia is it's own continent and also claims part of Antarctica as territory.
Lol, did you think they wanted quality content?
And offer you a pre-order for $10 worth of use of my not yet existing machine.
In your analogy, we don't ban processed food as some people go hungry. We use agriculture to feed as many as possible with better foods. We try to do better. But more production is generally better. That's what AI is, the equivalent of processed food. It's not real food, it's less healthy but it's functional.
Same with ai. It is an input and output machine. It has costs associated. We assess the output on this merits and cost. If the output is slop, it should be discarded. If it is functional output, it gets used.
I think he's lost some funding due to obstructions. So if his plan was as a negotiation tactic, not as a means to help Putin, it's failed miserably.