The article was from four days ago, if anyone is wondering why she's speaking out against a bill that has already passed Congress.
During childhood development, we only get one chance to make sure their brains get proper nutrition.
If you create more hungry children now, it's something that you cannot fix in the future. The children you harm with this will live diminished lives, assuming they survive.
Improving nutrition for children is one of the best selling points for social programs.
Agreed. The salary increase, all else staying the same, is a good thing.
If anything, I'm disturbed by the previous government that actually reduced the salary. You can only do that if you can afford to do it. Meaning that they are almost certainly getting more money out of the government through other, corrupt, avenues.
This is not a defense or attack on any particular politician. But you need to pay politicians a competitive salary or corruption is completely inevitable.
The founding fathers can't really be spoken about as if they're one person. They disagreed with each other just like you'd expect. Some were probably more naive than others.
At least some of the founding fathers did understand political parties and that they would form. Some of them were against political parties, yes, especially George Washington, but the first American political parties were established during Washington's tenure as president. Everybody knew it would happen, but many of them tried their best to stop political party formation. That's why Washington talked about it in his farewell address that I mentioned.
The idea that the founding fathers believed a new constitution would come within a lifetime is just a misconception as far as I can tell. One founding father, Thomas Jefferson wrote about how a constitution lasts 19 years, and would only last longer due to force. But I don't think any of the founding fathers, even Jefferson, really believed we'd have a new constitution within that time. In fact, when that time limit expired, Jefferson himself was the sitting president. Did he really think he was only president due to his use of force at that time? I suspect not.
And it took over 5 years for all of the states to ratify the constitution that they came up with. I think a person experiencing this would feel in their bones that Constitutions were expected to last a long time.
There are different things we're calling AI. One is engaging in endeavors that are traditionally seen as creative, like text or image generation.
The AI we are talking about for this story is a text to speech engine that creates a believable voice. The voice parameters may be created by a human or AI or whatever. But that creation of the parameters of a voice is not the type of AI that we are talking about in this story.
If you read Washington's Farewell Address, the section where he warns about the dangers of party politics sounds to a modern ear like he is talking specifically about Trump.
Did he and his founding father co-authors have uncanny foresight? The truth is simpler than that. They lived their lives up to that point under oppressive authoritarian rulers.
They were describing the evils they knew from experience. The reason it sounds like Trump to us is that he's the evil we know from experience.
This is stealing her voice. It's just plain wrong.
What I really don't understand is, even if you think AI voice is okay, why not just make an original voice? Why you got to steal somebody's voice? Or if you don't want to do that, why not just get consent for the specific thing you're doing? Don't take advantage of the fact that she previously recorded her voice as an aid for the blind and steal her voice because of some small text in a contract. That's dishonest and pathetic.
You're the railway. Do you know how many people love and obsess over trains and railways? There are probably tons of people who would pay to hear an AI version of their voice coming from the train speakers. How did it come to this? How incompetent can you be?
The last time I built my computer, my storage was magnetic disk drives, and I moved to solid state, but I'd normally save my hard disks as secondary disks. Fans aren't that expensive and I think it's a good time to replace them, and I always end up hating my case by the time I need to upgrade.
I hate my current case because first, it didn't perfectly fit my motherboard, so the metal plate where all the connectors go wouldn't fit. I've lived with that part missing for over 5 years now. And second, it's got a stupid plexiglass window in its side, and I hate the whole concept of RGB stuff inside a computer. So all I get to see is how messy my cabling is and how much dust has accumulated.
If I was upgrading today, I'd probably try to reuse my disks and my power supply.
He gives one of the criteria as "upgradable". I also always purchase my PCs with the intention of having them upgradable, but the problem is that I do a good enough job at choosing parts that I never feel the need to upgrade them.
So, I only "upgrade" stuff if it breaks sooner than I expected, and otherwise, I simply use the PC until it breaks and I get an entirely new one.
As a result, I always tell myself that next time, I won't worry about whether something is upgradable. But then, I choose parts to be upgradable anyways, because I can't pretend to be somebody that I'm not.
One good way to think about the budget for a PC is to break it down by expected lifetime. So, if he's spending $700 on a PC, and he uses it for 7 years, then it's $100 per year. (My PCs usually last about that long, but I'm sure I'm the exception.)
Standley said he remembers Roley left high school in the middle of sophomore year. He said he believes Roley was expelled "after some trouble with a girl."
I found this part interesting. Also the part where they said they were scared of him... although that might just be tinted by the fact that they're trying to remember this guy they didn't know very well.
If you looked at my Duolingo, you'd think I was pretty fluent in Japanese. But if you look at me talking to a Japanese person, you'd think I knew very little Japanese.
It's meant to strip citizenship from those who may have lied about their criminal convictions or membership in illegal groups like the Nazi party, or communists during McCarthyism, on their citizenship applications.
While I disagree with denaturalization, I'd accept it if it meant that this reasoning became universal. If you lied while taking an oath that gives you special status, then your special status will be revoked.
Since virtually all Republican politicians lied in their oaths of office to defend the constitution, we could sue to have them removed.
The article was from four days ago, if anyone is wondering why she's speaking out against a bill that has already passed Congress.
During childhood development, we only get one chance to make sure their brains get proper nutrition.
If you create more hungry children now, it's something that you cannot fix in the future. The children you harm with this will live diminished lives, assuming they survive.
Improving nutrition for children is one of the best selling points for social programs.