Keep in mind that the founding fathers were guilty of what would have been considered a lot of grave crimes by England, which was formerly the jurisdiction that applied to them.
So they probably wouldn’t have had a huge appetite for blocking political rights of criminals given their recent standing.
if you can afford kids or not.
To amend that, if you are responsible and think you can’t afford kids and have the restraint and planning to select not to have children… there are plenty of people that can’t afford as many children as they have.
In fact of those that can “afford” kids easily, they are still more likely to stay at one or two.
But that if that “idiot” does propagate, but so does everyone else, no skin off the species back. If the selective pressure returns, well then the others keep going.
Don’t know that I’d characterize it as being “victims”, their media outlets have chosen to fuel anxiety and anger that was already there.
The media is culpable for pouring fuel on the fire, but the fire was already there. They are emboldened to be loud since they find such loud agreement from media and online, but they already were thinking the same basic things.
I’d like a small #2
Jesus… At least you said a small I guess…
Well, they could co-opt our brains in various ways.
That asinine stuff at an office? Maybe it’s work the computers weren’t good at.
Doing manual labor? Maybe it’s controlling some robot doing a real world analog.
Some unskippable ad that you passively thought about? Maybe it represented work being done.
Maybe it is intruding on “spare” brainpower and if the balance glitches in some weird way? Reset you with “just a dream”.
I think there’s enough room for a “wetware” computing explanation. However I could see it being more than audiences were really prepared to think through. I think your “we need the humans safely out of the way of harming us, but we don’t hate them and we’ll keep them alive and engaged in a safe way” probably would have worked well, but they wanted the AIs to be cartoonishly bad in the first movie, and that would have been “too nice”.
That argument can be made about the tax incentives.
However, regulations about emissions are intrinsically something we want, and we shouldn’t hold back on that just because gas cars can’t get to the level of emissions we need.
True, at some point investors switch from “good, they are improving efficiency” or “good, they are making way for higher quality hires” to “uhh, is there a problem? Are you going to keep going and risk going under some unknown critical threshold that will impact the health of your business?”.
One amendment, I’d say it’s because existing phones won’t let an app have access to listening for a wake word or phrase, and a phone hard codes that to the phone vendor code. Having passive access to microphone and camera and activating and showing what they want to the screen without contending with a platform lock screen that won’t play ball with them, that sort of thing. “AI” access wasn’t really going to be the challenge.
It’s not that they didn’t run on existing phones, I could see that, I find it more stupid that they stopped short of just making their device a phone capable of traditional interaction. As it stands it’s going to be a subset of capability of phones coming out this year that will likely offer similar “AI” features while also continuing to support traditional hand held usage. If they didn’t want to sign up for all that, they probably could have teamed up with someone like Motorola, who might be hungry enough to let Rabbit do their thing on a Moto G variant or something.
They do, to a point.
If it’s a “trim” that is a vague percentage without any standout cuts in recognized people or groups, then good. If there are recognized names or groups, but they are people associated with widely known failures, like a team whose sole responsibility is a proven financial failure, good or even better. If you have people caught up in it who are well recognized for critical successes, then the investors won’t be so bullish.
Here we see two groups seen as responsible for the key success factors of Tesla obliterated, with very little external signs of why this could be a rational move. The other layoffs might have been viewed well, even if some of them were also bad news, but I think these two will be viewed as bad news.
Also, this may be seen as a missed opportunity. Tesla established SC network as the premiere EV charging solution, and made it credibly cover other manufacturers, setting it up as independently valuable with it without Tesala. Tesla ditched the entire team, putting that at risk and taking on expenses to let go of those people for long term salary savings. A different business might have sold off the group intact, not only avoiding severance expense, but also getting a big check in the process from some other company. Keeping the “business” with none of the actual people is a bizarre move.
People are just asking questions
This presumes the options are only:
Key word is ‘assisted’ driving. ADAS should roughly be a nice add, so long as human attention is policed. Ultimately, the ADAS systems are better able to react to some situations, but may utterly make some stupid calls in exceptional scenarios.
Here, the bar of ‘no human paying attention at all’ is one I’m not entirely excited about celebrating. Of course the conditions are “daytime traffic jam only”, where risk is pretty small, you might have a fender bender, pedestrians are almost certainly not a possibility, and the conditions are supremely monotonous, which is a great area for ADAS but not a great area for bored humans.
Well, not always hands on wheel. I have spent over an hour straight on an interstate with hands off. Ford’s system watches your eyes and lets your hands stay off if it’s decent conditions and on a LIDAR-mapped freeway. Note I wouldn’t trust it at night (there have been two crashes, both at night with stopped vehicles on freeway), but then I wouldn’t really trust myself at night either too much (there are many many more human caused crashes at night, I’m not sure a human at freeway speed could avoid a crash with a surprise stationary vehicle in middle of the road).
The rich person is more likely to require more police services. The rich person is pretty much the only sort of person that’s ever going to have the FBI seriously in their corner. That rich person is more likely to care deeply about the interstate system and the FAA. If a foreign military is coming, the rich are the people that would most desperately want the defense. The rich have the government acting on their best interests in meddling in world affairs and negotiating trade.
Though you probably think welfare is what most taxes go toward, but that’s actually a relatively small piece of the tax funded pie.
the rich pay more in taxes each year than most people will make in their entire lives
Yet even when doing so they also take home more money each year than most people will make in their entire lives.
There’s two facets to consider. -Is government spending well managed, and if not, what to do to improve it? You may have some fair points there
-To the extent government spending is reasonably required, how to handle paying for it? On this, you overextend their point about who can afford. Someone making $30k/year and trying to get by can’t really spare any money. Someone making $500k/year would still have crap tons of money even paying $200k/year in taxes. No one is proposing that making more should make it so you take home less than the low income person, or even close to the low income person, just that the proportion that can go to government comfortably increases.
While I see a lot of posts that would have this problem, at least the discussion are a bit more balanced compared to when the same stuff would happen on Reddit. So for example fuck cars is about the same in terms of posts, but here I tend to see a bit more back and forth and a balanced perspective on how the comments are up voted. On Reddit, any comment vaguely questioning the circle jerk will be down voted into oblivion and receive nothing but angry replies.
The amount of apolitical posts is a bit disappointing though.
To be fair, that’s an accurate representation of a human Gab user
Well, on one hand you had one line in a table in a formal web page.
On the other, you had that very awkward phrasing (if he merely meant ‘latest’):
because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we’re all still working on Windows 10,
But maybe that was a misunderstanding and he did mean ‘latest’, but in the flurry of internet coverage, Microsoft never issued a statement highlighting the misunderstanding. Instead they let that run rampant.
In fact, it was very consistent with a lot that happened with Windows 10:
So while certainly that one lifecycle page did have it stated, I have to wonder why Microsoft was mum on the subject even as their community was ‘getting it wrong’. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reality is that they were seriously considering it. That guy might have even meant ‘last’ because he thought the ‘eternal update’ camp were going to win out.
Bad publicity is relative.
The “bad publicity” when he is an odious asshole? His base loves that, they think they all should be able to say that stuff out loud.
Legal problems? Well they firmly believe it’s just a conspiracy to witch hunt and every case serves only to fuel their persecution complex
Anything else? Lies by the liberal media, they see the truth on Fox News. When Fox News even reports on it, then they shun them and off to newsmax or just their favorite Facebook posts.