The downvotes are because it seemed that you were asking in bad faith. You said “I believe it is true”, but now you say (admit) that you were questioning it.
The downvotes are because it seemed that you were asking in bad faith. You said “I believe it is true”, but now you say (admit) that you were questioning it.
Runs debian unstable. Shuts down his machine every year or so.
The author mentions that some of the changes broke things, but it’s a long way into the article before the word “test” appears. It’s only point 6/7 of his recommendations.
Making changes with no test coverage is not refactoring. It’s just rewriting. Start there.
AI developers: your copyrighted work is such a small contributor to the AI’s output that copyright doesn’t apply. Also AI developers: but our AI won’t work without it.
Formula 1 switched to semi-automatic in the 1980s. The technology has only improved over the last 40 years. If fast is what you want, driving a manual is insanity.
I don’t think China wants that.
He has those weird psychological tricks, like standing funny, having a long tie, and the handshake thing. Getting people to say “hello, how are you” to him is probably one of those, and he’s upset that she sidestepped it.
They’ll probably publish the abridged version, sadly. The full version reads, as we well know:
Thou shall not commit adultery but, if thou doest, thou shalt pay off the other woman so that it harmeth not thy chances in the presidential election. Nor shall it turn thy supporters against thee when they heareth of it.
If you make a painting now, it wouldn’t be based on those thousands and thousands of paintings since, although you have seen them, you apparently do not remember them. But, if you did, and you made a painting based on one, and did not acknowledge it, you would indeed be a bad artist.
The bad part about using the art of the past is not copying. The problem is plagiarism.
Inspiration is absolutely a thing. When Constable and Cezanne sat at their easels, a large part of their inspiration was Nature. When Picasso invented Cubism, he was reacting to tradition, not following it. There are also artists like Alfred Wallis, who are very unconnected to tradition.
I think your final sentence is actually trying to say that we have advances in tools, not inspiration, since the Lascaux caves are easily on a par with the Sistine Chapel if you allow for the technology? And that AI is simply a new tool? That may be, but does the artist using this new tool control which images it was trained on? Do they even know? Can they even know?
Maybe the AIs should mix their own pigments as well, instead of taking all the other artists’ work and grinding that up.
Last year, Tesla announced that they had improved with autonomous emergency braking system, to go ‘beyond standard AEB functionality’. And yet, here we have a story where a Tesla drove straight into a stationary vehicle and, according to the cop, didn’t slow down.
Yes, the driver should have been paying attention, but why did the AEB do nothing?
Significant money and effort? Greenpeace does not have ‘significant money’ in comparison with the petrochemical companies. And effort? Greenpeace was one of the first groups to raise awareness of the danger of global warming. They have been actively fighting it since long before you heard of the term. They have been promoting sustainable energy all that time. If we had followed their lead, we would most likely be off nuclear and off fossil fuels. The fact that we (the rest of us) have failed to follow their lead is not their fault.
This is just obviously untrue. Not least because we did build lots of nuclear power plants. One significant reason why we didn’t build more was their high price compared to … coal and gas plants. But sure, it’s Greenpeace’s fault and not Exxon Mobil.
None of what you said makes me think the situation would be worse than having Putin in charge. It’s a stretch to say Putin came from the civil sphere, and he assassinates his enemies in foreign countries using nerve agents and throws people out of windows at home.
Yes, but he did have his gun out and the spokesperson effectively said “don’t worry, he didn’t mean to fire it - he was only planning to point it at people”.
You asked “you can … but why would you?”. You answered yourself.
Because he wasn’t in a situation where he was going to need to shoot anyone but he decided to proceed as if he was. And accidents happen, as he demonstrated.
You can say this is SOP, but that’s worse, isn’t it?
Thank you. I hadn’t checked what they’re issued with.
So then I’m wondering why he didn’t demount the flashlight. I guess he was worried that he might accidentally fire the gun into his foot while doing so. He’s obviously a little bit prone to that kind of thing. Safer to leave it on the rail, I guess.
Well, there you are again. You said “my questioning of what you claimed”. That isn’t self reflection. If you aren’t asking in bad faith, you need to spend more time on your wording.