FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

466

Joined

2 yr. ago

Then you agree with him.

U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston said Thursday the new law “is painfully and blatantly a violation of the First Amendment.”

That's not a final ruling, but it absolutely telegraphs the final ruling.

Other professors do include this material. And AP psych is supposed to mimic a psych 101 course, but it doesn't have to mimic your course.

I think you are underestimating the significance of the ruling. In cases like this, judges issue temporary injunctions if they believe the law will most likely be found unconstitutional when the lawsuit is resolved. The judge described the law as a "blatant violation of the 1st Amendment", indicating that he will most likely issue a permanent injunction later.

So it's only the "right call" if you agree with him. And if it matters to anyone, this judge is a Trump appointee.

This wasn't a civil case. This was a criminal case. Depriving someone of their civil rights is a federal crime. The officer was prosecuted by Brandon Brown.

U.S. Attorney Brandon Brown, who is not related to Jacob Brown, told AP he was proud of the 48-year-old Bowman for having the courage to tell his story.

“These cases are arguably the toughest that we investigate and prosecute,” he said. “We believe that this victim’s civil rights were violated. Unfortunately for us the jury didn’t agree, and we’ll have to respect their decision.”

The citizen can't appeal either. Prosecutors are in charge of a criminal case, not citizens.

I doubt it, since prosecutors generally cannot appeal a verdict of not guilty.

You give your family information to your employer so they can estimate your taxes. But you're not required to keep them up to date.

So for instance if you tell your employer that you're single and then get married, you are not required to update your employer. Same is true of having a child, etc. Hence the need for an official annual update, which goes directly to the IRS.

True, but remember it's not libel if everyone assumes you're lying.

I don't think sending you a bill would work for most people, since they don't know how much you owe until you tell them whether you're married, have dependent kids, have a mortgage, etc. These are things they need to verify every year, so you will always need to send them something every year.

That said, they could certainly make the process simpler.

Georgia is about to enter the chat.

Maybe they mean the impeachment trial, but if so that's a bad take.

For those using imperial units, that's 1 bananalamadingdong.

Try a different server with better moderation. Maybe firefish.lgbt?

If you mean a countersuit for libel, then no. Anything said as part of a court proceeding is immune from libel lawsuits.

For those using the metric system, that's 97930 gigabananas.

Perhaps I should rephrase the argument as Searle did. He didn't actually discuss "abstract understanding", instead he made a distinction between "syntax" and "semantics". And he claimed that computers as we know them cannot have semantics, whereas humans can (even if we don't all have the same semantics).

Now consider a quadratic expression. If you want to solve it, you can insert the coefficients into the quadratic formula. There are other ways to solve it, but this will always give you the right answer.

If you remember your algebra class, you will recognize that the quadratic formula isn't just some random equation to compute. You use it with intention, because the answer is semantically meaningful. It describes things like cars accelerating or apples falling.

You can teach a three year old to identify the coefficients, you can show them the symbols that make up the quadratic formula: "-", second number, "+", "√", "(", etc. And you can teach them to copy those symbols into a calculator in order. So a three year old could probably solve a quadratic expression. But they almost certainly have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. It's just a series of symbols that they were told to copy into a calculator, their only intention was to copy them in order correctly. There are no semantics behind the equation.

For that matter, a three year old could equally well enter the symbols necessary to calculate relativistic time dilation, which is an even shorter equation. But if their parents proudly told you that their toddler can solve problems in special relativity, you might think, "Yes... but not really."

That three year old is every computer program. Sure, an AI can enter symbols into a calculator and report the answer. If you tell them to enter a different series of symbols, they will report a different answer. You can tell the AI that one answer scores 0.1 and another scores 0.8, and to calculate a different equation that is based partly on those scores. But to the AI, those scores and equations have no semantic meaning. At some point those scores might stop increasing, and you will declare that the AI is "trained". But at no point does the AI assign any semantic content behind those symbols or scores. It is pure syntax.

Barbra Streisand called, she wants her effect back.

Only if you assume that farm grown vegetables are more moral than any other food.

It's repeated so often that nobody even questions it. People assume you're joking if you don't take it for granted.

But if you think about it, the assumption does not hold up. Farms are not benign, no matter what they produce.