People abroad say the US is very litigious. Some of that is probably related lax consumer protection and the poor social safety net, but it’s nice to see that perception proven incorrect in this case. I wonder if he legitimately believed the hype about suing people in the US or if he would have done this anywhere else.
I’m not trying to make a case that Israel is somehow the good guy or anything, just that my statement is not related to the fact it’s a Jewish state. Israel is an apartheid state committing genocide. I was just making clear have no issue with Jewish people in general. Lots of Zionists on Lemmy so I was making that clear before it got derailed by bad faith actors. I am not following the Epstein thing that closely because it disgusts me to the point it makes me physically ill, so I can’t chime in about it at all other than to say it’s disgusting beyond reason.
Shapiro backs Israel and Tucker doesn’t. Trump is heavily aligned with Israel to the point that the war with Iran is basically because of them. I think Shapiro is safe so long as Israel sees him as useful.
Not that it should need to be said, but I’m not supporting an antisemitic conspiracy about a new world order or anything. It’s just that Trump and his people are dumb and easy to manipulate and several countries, including Israel, are taking advantage of that. That’s just normal country geopoliticing, not related to any religion or ethnicity.
I absolutely can’t stand it, but realistically it’s often just the appearance of “lower taxes”. I know people who DONT PAY TAXES who want lower taxes. They are stupid and I want to scream. It doesn’t matter how many articles or studies or videos you show them, they just associate republicans with lower taxes and that’s what they want. They don’t particularly care about human rights, or outcomes for citizens, just the idea of lower taxes. Capitalism has made class solidarity so hard. These people have no idea who really has aligned interests and are in a constant bubble of misinformation that they refuse to do even the slightest thing to escape from. You can spoon feed them facts and they will spit them out. It’s like trying to feed a baby, but at least one day the baby may grow up and be able to feed itself. These people are incurious rubes who are ruining the world and are often not the ones suffering most from their decisions, though to be clear, they’re often not benefiting either. Also a bunch of Christian nationalists, and fascists, and run of the mill racist, sexist reactionaries.
Literally allows up to 10% to be AI generated. Charging a fee for commercial use, but I can’t see what that fee is. Feels like a psyop.
Wow. What a terrible idea. There was a woman who was sent to jail in a different state for several months and lost her house, car, and dog because AI misidentified her and cops didn’t give a fuck. Cops should need a warrant for facial recognition at the very least, if it’s allowed at all. Can’t wait for “give me a smile” to be codified into law.
Considering there was a film festival just recently making the argument that the art isn’t political, it’s nice to see his statement.
That’s the opposite of what the OP is saying. The meme version of the story is what misleadingly implied the AI cured someone’s dog. I’m glad you have a better understanding of what might have happened, but it seems like the meme version would have been likely to mislead people into trusting AI for medical advice, at least for their pets. AI is not responsible or capable enough to provide medical advice, certainly not for a population that cannot realistically advocate for itself.
While I understand and appreciate the sentiment, I actually think it’s important for a variety of reasons, the main ones being:
Although I don’t care in the general sense, I do think it often decreases their ability to be good politicians.
What a completely accurate description. The nuance of the issues being subtle yet catastrophic is always the part that I find the funniest, because how are they so incapable of seeing how that might be a universal issue? Thank you for the chuckle.
Ridiculous that Grammarly even attempted to do this. The article was good, but at the end, though they hedged, they fell into the same trap everyone seems to. AI is not better at coding than it is at writing and their tinkering with this does not suggest that. Grammarly had a bad product, but realistically, there was likely just no effort put into this aspect of the software. Maybe I’m way off base, and I don’t support AI either way, but I just think it was a poor way to end the article. Programmers think it’s good for art, artists think it’s good for programming, it’s almost like it’s easier to see flaws in a field you’re familiar with.
If you sandbox anything it’ll be safer than otherwise. Not really sure what you’re suggesting. I would still want the code reviewed regardless of the safety measures in place.
I wrote a program that basically auto organizes my files for me. Even if an AI was sandboxed and only had access to the relevant files and had no delete privileges, I would still want the code reviewed. Otherwise it could move a file into a nonsensical location and I would have to go through all possible folders to find it. Someone would have to make the interfaces/gateways and also review the code. There’s no way to know how it’s working, so there’s no way to know IF it’s working, until the code is reviewed. Regardless of how detailed you prompt, AI will generate something that possibly (currently very likely) needs to be adjusted. I’m not going to take an AIs raw output and run it assuming the AI did it properly, regardless of the safety measures.
While I personally don’t like AI, I do think it is changing things. I don’t think it’s ever safe to run code without oversight from an actual programmer, but AI will likely affect the number of programmers being hired in a non negligible way.
Dubai is known for its for particularly egregious rights violations. Other countries have those too, but the article mentions people from the UK. Moving from the UK to the UAE does signal, at least to me, that human rights are not that big of a concern for you. The UK has a 91/100 vs UAE 18/100 “freedom” score. If the same article was about people fleeing Russia or Sudan back to the UK, I imagine there’d be a similar response. But Dubai in particular has a huge wealth gap, so on top of spending money to prop up an oppressive state, they are still able to surround themselves with luxury. I don’t think that’s racist, as much as unfortunate.
I’m not a lawyer, and I did mention in my above comment that everyone deserves the best defense possible, but I’m pretty sure you can say “this is an injustice”, “my clients and I will appeal”, many other things which are not explicitly stating that they are innocent after literally watching one of them rape an unconscious child. This was not in court, and I understand the court of public opinion plays a part in cases, but you’ll have to forgive me if I think this is beyond what is required of a good defense attorney.
Also, I’m pretty sure there are cases (like diddy) where there is a reliance on at least some admission of guilt, and the presumption is that though you may be guilty of a crime, it’s not as severe or deserving of the punishment the prosecution is seeking.
For those also curious, these are not the property brothers who were prominently featured on HGTV.
Also, there is apparently video evidence of a rape of an unconscious underage girl and their lawyers still had the gall to say:
“We believe in our clients’ innocence,” Marc Agnifilo, a lawyer for Oren Alexander, said after the verdict. “We’re going to keep fighting.” U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni set sentencing for Aug. 6. The brothers, incarcerated since their 2024 arrests, face up to life in prison.
I believe that everyone is entitled to the best defense possible, but that is a ridiculous statement to make given the evidence.
I keep seeing this, but I think people forget what things were like before we had a formalized education system. They were not good. The modern system can certainly be improved, but it has overall improved upon itself essentially since its inception. I’m not sure if there’s some kind of golden age of US education people are imagining, or they’re just pointing out current flaws, but it really is (unfortunately or not) the best it’s ever been.
That’s really not fair to universities or the inventors. Knowledge is not inherently evil, and things that have far reaching positive impacts can be used for nefarious purposes. Modern society has perverse incentives, but individuals adding to a corpus of humanity’s knowledge are not the ones at fault.
Often times these purchases are not for the product itself, but how it can be incorporated into an existing product. I imagine if Meta makes bot accounts for people to follow/engage with, they can increase user retention and therefore ad revenue.
I’m coming from a US centric place, but I’m pretty sure the N word is generally used to mean a very specific word which is notably not the Spanish word for black. Do people call the Spanish word the N word too in other countries?