No, it wasn't. We didn't keep the secret. USSR successfully stole secrets. They also knew we were up to an atomic bomb. I don't know why you think they didn't.
Point #2
Imagine if someone told you that Europeans never went back to the New World after Columbus.
That would be ridiculous because there was good free unclaimed land. While it's never explicitly said, free unclaimed land requires oxygen, food, and water. Otherwise it's not land you can live on, it's land you can work on while someone keeps you alive.
We should have the Moon setup like it was in the Sam Rockwell movie: Moon by now.
Why? In the arctic we can measure the weather of the poles, study long term isolation of humans. We don't need to provide water or air, transportation is cheap compared to the moon. The marianas trench allows us to study formation of the earth, genetics of crazy offshoots of earth biology. Evacuation procedure is UP, taking hours. Moon trip is 6 days round trip, can't be cancelled or evacuated. Both are drops in the bucket in price vs the moon.
With the moon you can... well what? A telescope could be awesome but if you're going that far you could also just drop one off at a Lagrange point of the earth. Mining sounds great until you realize that bringing the resources home require either an entire manufacturing hub on the moon to launch resources at earth. You won't see returns for decades, any fuck up could ruin it all. Telescopes are unmanned, so drop it somewhere and it lasts as long as it lasts.
I believe the moon landing was faked.
The USSR acknowledged that we made it, there's no reason for them to lie.
multiple groups were able to track the missions via radio transmissions, which isn't someone saying "oh look they said they're in space so they must be" It's mutiple locations saying. "I'm recieving this signal from this direction at this time. Judging from all this data, they're halfway to the moon."
Why would we lie about it? If it's about stealing the money that went into it we already have 60% of the pentagon budget unaccounted for. If it's about deceiving the soviets how could we possibly trick them? If it's about raising nationalism why not pull an FDR and minimize poverty?
just... no. If you want to push this then you need some hard evidence. You're the one making the extraordinary claim.
As an aside, do you also think the James Webb telescope fake? That is as nuts as the moon landing, and is still friggin THERE.
It's always first person for me, but the one lucid dream I ever had I dreamed I was playing kirby on a gameboy advance and I was absolutely the kirby. So I suppose that was third person at least once.
Honestly then Democrats win, because Trump is running. Even if he's not eligible he will whine and moan and a considerable segment will write him in or protest or not vote in protest.
Until you realize that the people who make the final decision on whether something the AI saw is indeed too far or extreme are the exact same people making the decision now and all we've succeeded in doing is creating a million dollar system that makes it look like they're trying to change.
So fix that. Don't make an AI to dole out justice against police like some messed up lottery. This is such a hollow solution in my mind. AI struggles to identify a motorcycle, people expect it to identify abuse?
I am so confused by this, why does there need to be AI involved in this at all?
If somebody has a complaint, pull the footage, then the plaintiff goes over the footage and makes their case against the police officer. Why would an AI be necessary to find complaints that are not being complained about?
I feel like it's a technology solution for what should be a "more transparency and a better system" solution. Make complaints easier and reduce the fear factor of making complaints.
It's because a person can crank out a deep fake in 3 hours, and a crappy one in one. It never cropped up because... well lets be real it was a couple of weirdos that were doing it, unless it bubbles up from the dark corners of the internet you risk the Streisand effect by bringing attention to it.
AI can crank out 40 in a minute. 7200 in three hours. That's an entirely different beast. The sheer mass and volume ramps up the odds of any image bubbling up from the dark corners of the web falling into the limelight and now this problem that wasn't big enough to merit thought is rearing up it's ugly head right in front of us.
You can generate unique pictures of Taylor Swift faster than even Taylor swift can generate pictures of Taylor Swift. Within one hour of Taylor swift being seen with a man (and you have enough images of the man) you can create a dozen images of her on a date with that man and attempt to sell them to paparazzi.
The problem is volume. Just like how email made everyone connected and allowed the Nigerian Prince scandal to occur.
Yeah, there is a large fixation on whether he did or did not pull the trigger and I genuinely feel like that's not the straw that breaks the camel's back, because ultimately he was told it was a clear gun.
What matters is:
Did he know that there were serious concerns about gun safety on set?
Did he use his star power/producer role to silence those concerns?
Did he retaliate against people who raised those concerns?
If he did any of those three things, then you have a rapidly strengthening case that he knowingly endangered the crew, and he should have known NOT to have aimed that gun at anybody. You made that gun unsafe and then the gun went off in your hands because you reaped what you sowed.
Secondly (more controversially), is a picture of a noose racist? I mean, it certainly has racist connotations and I personally wouldn’t have used it, but (bear with me) I’m not sure racist is the concrete conclusion. Lots of people have been hung throughout history, if you’re not viewing it through a racial lens then are you a racist or just very insensitive.
I see what you're saying... but it seems like a technicality that's not worth exploring here.
If instead it was a guillotine with a caption of "this year's detention activity"... it's really not any better. Like it's no longer racist but... now it's just purely about killing kids in a more equitable homicidal format. It's very dark humor in a very public place.
It's a lot of time and effort and argument to debate "yeah this was terrible but it might not have been racist". Does a definitive answer of "at least it wasn't racist" make this appreciably any better? Does it make them any more likely to get a teaching job after this?
It also doesn't change the core argument the teacher is making in the story. "You lumped me in with a bunch of racists because I was white. I took down the image because it was offensive. Obviously. Why would I leave it up if it was offensive?"
You know genuinely I don't understand why this isn't a thing. It's expensive to have two homes, especially when you aren't even sure you'll have the job for more than four years. It would lower the cost of entry into politics for people who do work minimum wage.
Shoving someone into a land full of surprise expenses seems like a perfect recipe for corruption.
I mean, that's a quest at it's core but a good game works it into a narrative and makes it blend. Ideally making all 6 steps anything but tedious. Ideally interesting and fun, but at all times avoiding tedious like the plague.
Two identical "perform quest for NPC"s, which is your step 4. Negotiate for a thing in a briefcase from somebody who probably will double cross you.
Which one is more tedious? Now combine a 4 minute run in a barren wasteland in your steps 1 and 6...
A few other things that Cyberpunk did, There are several ways to handle that mission, those several options can cause 3 major shifts in that faction. Which affect other missions later on, indeed any time you deal with the maelstrom gang.
Cyberpunk had a lot of flaws but, they're at least innovating. I've never been in a legit standoff like that in a game. It's always been in a static looping animation at 8 paces.
TLDR if you don't wanna watch the 20 minute segment:
Internet Historian used the Mental Floss article as a script for the video. The owners of the article made a DMCA takedown on the video as it was used without permission. Internet Historian has downplayed why it was taken down, reworded and removed swaths of the video to make it sound less like the article. Released the re-upload of Man in Cave with another video at the same time in order to try and distract from the story that he did indeed copy a little known article.
He does good work... but he also totally did copy the script of Man in Cave. Hbomberguy does a pretty good argument proving this.
Sounds like a wonderful story arc. Looking for a buyer for a kidney stone while at the exact same time, infuriatingly, fending off assassins trying to steal the kidney stone. Which you would ABSOLUTELY SELL TO THEM if they would just reach out.
Do you advertise even more publicly, risking more assassins? Or do you stay more quiet, do research, try to figure out why people want this stone so badly and yet won't just buy the damn thing?
I mean, in the era of VHS this won't work because ultimately you're fast forwarding and rewinding. So you're gonna watch it anyway. but in the digital era I thought this would be what any Police officer did?
Like... they're not even gonna spend 10 minutes on a theft?
point #1
No, it wasn't. We didn't keep the secret. USSR successfully stole secrets. They also knew we were up to an atomic bomb. I don't know why you think they didn't.
Point #2
That would be ridiculous because there was good free unclaimed land. While it's never explicitly said, free unclaimed land requires oxygen, food, and water. Otherwise it's not land you can live on, it's land you can work on while someone keeps you alive.
Why? In the arctic we can measure the weather of the poles, study long term isolation of humans. We don't need to provide water or air, transportation is cheap compared to the moon. The marianas trench allows us to study formation of the earth, genetics of crazy offshoots of earth biology. Evacuation procedure is UP, taking hours. Moon trip is 6 days round trip, can't be cancelled or evacuated. Both are drops in the bucket in price vs the moon.
With the moon you can... well what? A telescope could be awesome but if you're going that far you could also just drop one off at a Lagrange point of the earth. Mining sounds great until you realize that bringing the resources home require either an entire manufacturing hub on the moon to launch resources at earth. You won't see returns for decades, any fuck up could ruin it all. Telescopes are unmanned, so drop it somewhere and it lasts as long as it lasts.
just... no. If you want to push this then you need some hard evidence. You're the one making the extraordinary claim.
As an aside, do you also think the James Webb telescope fake? That is as nuts as the moon landing, and is still friggin THERE.