Well, it's kind of a broken line item. It's the comment section on a post that usually has nothing to do with the post about technology, politics or shitpost.
Posting a cat pic? -- CIA conspiracy. Recipe for deep dish pizza? -- CIA conspiracy. Instructions on how to give the heimlich maneuver to a one legged goat? -- You guessed it! CIA conspiracy.
Cool script.
No, the 'defensive information wall' is used to ensure complete loyalty to a family that wants to maintain 100% control over their population. It's part of how dictatorships work.
Western governments have their issues to, for sure, but framing the DPRK as the victim is some serious mental gymnastics. The Gaza whataboutisim is just deflection and you are actually defending my point: AI restriction is about information control, not about resource allocation.
This is obviously AI slop. Hysterical.
The real reason the DPRK won't allow AI for the people is that information can't easily be restricted, they can't build their own models and would quickly destabilize the country if they learned that their lord and master actually does take a shit like a normal human.
It's a nautical star. An older tatoo, but may still be a thing today.
I am fairly sure this is a mix of plotlines from several different movies.
I am sure there are a ton of factors involved. I am also sure that there is a lot of financial incentives to publish positive studies.
There is a huge caveat to posting a study to counter your stats above since you technically aren't wrong. "Typically" can mean many different things, but here, it can also fit within published data.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1125407/
Most articles I found usually point to roughly the same numbers as that study, but there is a lot of variation in how those numbers are presented. (Even that study initially presents stats in a way that is confusing: A percentage of a percentage of a percentage, over time.)
My point is that it's one of those stats that is super easy view as "really good" or simultaneously "exceptionally bad". IMHO, I still think it's crazy that we can even do transplants at all.
Edit: I believe everyone should at least get a chance to live a bit longer, but it sucks that it comes at extreme cost. The procedures are extremely expensive and a person could potentially be put on expensive anti-rejection drugs for the remainder of their life. Add in all the follow-up appointments and occasional hiccups in recovery (adding even more cost) a person is likely going to die broke and be put through even more stress that is a very real danger to health anyway.
Those drones are still very inaccurate compared to other weapons that we use today and are basically just terror weapons. It is an automated killing machine, sure. It doesn't target anything other than a coordinate.
It's the decision by a machine to target something specific that is the moral conundrum. If you give a machine the ability to "decide" to kill one person over another, there isn't anyone to blame for the death. There is a ton of randomness introduced into neutral networks (AI) and any decisions are non-deterministic in nature. You can jam in as many guardrails as you want, but if the ultimate decision is to kill or not to kill, the guardrails do not matter. This spawns a ton of questions about giving machines the intelligence to kill. Even though there is randomness in any conflict, we can get away with calling it "collateral damage".
If a machine decides that a book looks like a gun and hoses a classroom of 5 year olds, there isn't really any accountability if the machine was approved by law. Again, there isn't anyone to blame, which is a huge part of how humanity works, unfortunately. (Side thought: This would get even more complicated if said machine was supposed to fill the role of a protector or guardian.)
Even with the most complex weapons today, they are just following specific directions to hit a coordinate at a specific time. There isn't any real thought behind it even if it is extremely accurate. Once the trigger is pulled, weapon go to destination and the trigger person is responsible.
Edit: I made a fuck ton of edits to add clarification. Sorry if you were an unfortunate recipient of a draft.
Used to watch him on the Today show on a black and white TV when I was a kid. We aren't that old, TBH.
Tilt the head in the left picture forward a bit? You could probably get alignment on the face holes, maybe?
The ears could be moved and the new holes could be purely cosmetic. That seems more in-line with the form-over-function theme we seem to have going on here.
Seriously, I do think you are correct but it also doesn't take much to throw perspective off with different cameras or lenses.
Hindsight is 20/20 and I realize this probably wasn't the best idea to begin with....
(Scott Kirkland, if you were wondering..)
Describe the issue: Images may be assigned different IDs on page reloads resulting in duplicate cache items. (See attached image: Not sure if actually duplicate files or if cached files are soft linked to each other.)
Steps to reproduce:
The following settings have been changed from defaults:
1 (default: 0)true (default: false)true (default: false)true (default: false)New (default: Active)hide (default: blur)list (default: card)5 (default: 2)
Describe the issue: Click thumbnail for external link
Steps to reproduce:
The following settings have been changed from defaults:
1 (default: 0)true (default: false)false (default: true)true (default: false)true (default: false)New (default: Active)hide (default: blur)list (default: card)5 (default: 2)
https://www.audubon.org/magazine/apparently-magpies-and-crows-are-using-anti-bird-spikes-make-their-nests