FatCrab @ FatCrab @lemmy.one

Posts

0

Comments

189

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think the voters who voted for Trump are probably at least 90% to blame for Trump being elected by voters into office?

Bud, I'm too tired to care about arguing about reality with you. The entire settler movement and likudnik side of Israel is fully aligned with and happy about Trump. Disappearance of Gaza and West Bank entirely was extremely unlikely under Harris and is very likely under Trump. As is actual US troops side by side with IDF in the Levant in a very obvious very different way than they have been so far. Lot of people, perhaps an entire people, are very pprobability going to die.

Netanyahu expressly wanted a Trump administration and even closely corresponded with him during the campaign. Moreover, no, the outlook under Biden was nowhere near as dire as what it's already shaping up to be under Trump, even if it was awful and an affront to any reason le persons conscience.

I think his intentions are very clear and he very often speaks them. Where Trump is utterly full of shit is where he describes reality, as in migrant crime waves, how tariffs actually work, Haitian pet eating, etc. And most of it he couldn't get before because there were process barriers in play. Much of that has been cleared both in the intervening years and as a direct result of the down ballot of this election.

You mean the wall that had multiple useless sections built with American taxpayers money and he absolutely would have continued with if not for the inherent logistics issues of physical reality and lack of competent enablers that aren't blockers this time around?

Also, the 2016 administrator WAS catastrophic. The hyper consolidation of corporate actors, deregulation and defanging of admin agencies that effectively removed all culpability from corporate actors, and bureaucratic damage that has made recovery a steeple uphill battle all happened not just under his watching but as an explicit intent of his watch.

That the overwhelming majority of voters are not just uninformed, uncritical, and apathetic, but actually might be morons? I don't know.

Biden and Harris both have been fairly active in supporting labor and trying to tackle corporate Greed. Harris regularly talked about anti-gouging laws as well as the other items mentioned already. Biden was the most pro-union president we've seen in decades, had a strong NLRB, and was responsible for appointing the most active and effective FTC head we've seen in ages.

There are many many issues with the democratic party, but holy shit, being less supportive of the working class than fucking Republicans is absolutely not one of them.

That the overwhelming majority of voters are not just uninformed, uncritical, and apathetic, but actually might be morons? I don't know.

Biden and Harris both have been fairly active in supporting labor and trying to tackle corporate Greed. Harris regularly talked about anti-gouging laws as well as the other items mentioned already. Biden was the most pro-union president we've seen in decades, had a strong NLRB, and was responsible for appointing the most active and effective FTC head we've seen in ages.

There are many many issues with the democratic party, but holy shit, being less supportive of the working class than fucking Republicans is absolutely not one of them.

That the overwhelming majority of voters are not just uninformed, uncritical, and apathetic, but actually might be morons? I don't know.

Biden and Harris both have been fairly active in supporting labor and trying to tackle corporate Greed. Harris regularly talked about anti-gouging laws as well as the other items mentioned already. Biden was the most pro-union president we've seen in decades, had a strong NLRB, and was responsible for appointing the most active and effective FTC head we've seen in ages.

There are many many issues with the democratic party, but holy shit, being less supportive of the working class than fucking Republicans is absolutely not one of them.

Ah, gotcha, yea the coverage of this has been awful. I know if I talk to my cousins about this, they'll freak out about antisemitic violence in Europe rather than understand that this is pretty justified not even antizionist but anti-generalal-shithead violence.

I'm sure a lot has to do with your home server, but I don't think I've seen a single post about this where the top comment hasn't immediately clarified that this was most likely a reciprocal attack after these idiots were running havoc through Amsterdam. I've even seen mentions of them beating up an Arab cab driver (though haven't seen anything to confirm, tbh).

Couple it with privatizing the national weather service so there will effectively be no warnings, and most of FL is gonna be dead anyhow.

No, Trump won it. He got votes and those votes were from people who cast them. Yes, democratic party has problems, but the far bigger problem is that enough people voted for Trump when given other options.

I'm sick of this denial of voters culpability for their own votes. You are responsible for who you vote for and the outcomes. People voted for this and they are fundamentally responsible. Right now, folks just need to focus on making their local communities robust against the oncoming disasters.

However, it only survives in space for 22 minutes, but then it resets to its origin so no biggie.

If he loses, I think we see the fractures in the republican party really start to cascade even more than they have since the last election. It'll still be a stewpot of regressive, reactionary, fascist fellating bullshit, but their goose stepping will be out of sync.

Meanwhile, a collapse of the Republican part opens the door for a likewise restructuring of the Democratic party, which has for decades now been a big tent party for people who aren't braindead, but is otherwise pretty ideideologically disparate. And before you wah wah wah FPTP, keep in mind that all RCV initiatives in the US have arisen out of Democratic party affiliated groups.

Moreover, because of the conservative-court lead overturning of chevron combined with bullshittery about standing, FDA, among all other agencies, have at best questionable power.

AI in health and medtech has been around and in the field for ages. However, two persistent challenges make roll out slow-- and they're not going anywhere because of the stakes at hand.

The first is just straight regulatory. Regulators don't have a very good or very consistent working framework to apply to to these technologies, but that's in part due to how vast the field is in terms of application. The second is somewhat related to the first but really is also very market driven, and that is the issue of explainability of outputs. Regulators generally want it of course, but also customers (i.e., doctors) don't just want predictions/detections, but want and need to understand why a model "thinks" what it does. Doing that in a way that does not itself require significant training in the data and computer science underlying the particular model and architecture is often pretty damned hard.

I think it's an enormous oversimplification to say modern AI is just "fancy signal processing" unless all inference, including that done by humans, is also just signal processing. Modern AI applies rules it is given, explicitly or by virtue of complex pattern identification, to inputs to produce outputs according to those "given" rules. Now, what no current AI can really do is synthesize new rules uncoupled from the act of pattern matching. Effectively, a priori reasoning is still out of scope for the most part, but the reality is that that simply is not necessary for an enormous portion of the value proposition of "AI" to be realized.

Summary judgement is not a thing separate from a lawsuit. It's literally a standard filling made in nearly every lawsuit (even if just as a hail mary). You referenced "beyond a reasonable doubt" earlier. This is also not the standard used in (US) civil cases--it's typically a standard consisting of the preponderance of the evidence.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "court approved documentation." Different jurisdictions approach contract law differently, but courts don't "approve" most contracts--parties allege there was a binding and contractual agreement, present their evidence to the court, and a mix of judge and jury determines whether under the jurisdictions laws and enforceable agreement occurred and how it can be enforced (i.e., are the obligations severable, what damages, etc.).

There's plenty you could do if no label was produced with a sufficiently high confidence. These are continuous systems, so the idea of "rerunning" the model isn't that crazy, but you could pair that with an automatic decrease in speed to generate more frames, stop the whole vehicle (safely of course), divert path, and I'm sure plenty more an actual domain and subject matter expert might come up with--or a whole team of them. But while we're on the topic, it's not really right to even label these confidence intervals as such--they're just output weighting associated with respective levels. We've sort of decided they vaguely match up to something kind of sort approximate to confidence values but they aren't based on a ground truth like I'm understanding your comment to imply--they entirely derive out of the trained model weights and their confluence. Don't really have anywhere to go with that thought beyond the observation itself.

Are you under the impression that I think Teslas approach to AI and computer vision is anything but fucking dumb? The person said a stupid and patently incorrect thing. I corrected them. Confidence values being literally baked into how most ML architectures work is unrelated to intentionally depriving your system of one of the most robust ccomputer vision signals we can come up with right now.