He says himself that he was there to protect businesses, but he had no relation to the business beyond that of a standard employee, and his help was never requested–he didn’t know the owners, his family didn’t own the business, and he wasn’t even a frequent customer IIRC.

The most charitable interpretation is that an untrained, underage civilian took a semiautomatic rifle across state lines, to a protest happening in a town he didn’t live in, to guard a business that he had no special relation to, and that never asked for his help.

The more probable interpretation, given posts on his social media before the shooting (that weren’t allowed to be shown in court), is that he wanted to play action hero and shoot some scumbags, and he got exactly what he hoped.

EDIT: Apparently he worked at the business he was guarding, but the point still stands–he never got permission to defend the business, nor was it ever offered.

What system do you think is better, then? Because, reading that post, the main takeaway I got was basically “the people that lost a vote don’t have much say in government,” which… That’s how democracy works? I’m confused.

IIRC they ejected them because Rasmussen Reports put out a ridiculously flawed article that called the results of the Arizona gubernatorial election into question based on a study whose methodology was so flawed that it could be torn apart by a particularly sharp grade schooler–they took a poll, sponsored by a Republican group, four months after the election, then weighted it against exit polls (not the actual election results), and then used that to claim the Republican won by eight points instead of losing by 1. This prompted the guy in charge of 538 to send them a letter basically saying “are you gonna fix your methodology to reflect something close to reality, orrrrr…” and Rasmussen said “lol no”

Meh, I upvoted you. I personally think he’s been about as good a president as someone could hope for, which is a pretty fucking low bar, but I still voted uncommitted in my primary yesterday even though I would crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump in November. I don’t blame anybody who holds their nose and votes as a pure harm reduction measure.

Trump will make sure to thank you for your efforts getting him elected.

But don’t you get it, the only way I can show support for Palestine is by staying home, even if it means electing a fascist who promised to promised to wholeheartedly support Israel in their genocide! /s

An honest answer: It would likely increase the progressive voter turnout, but I am unsure about the net effect. I would certainly hope it increases total overall turnout, but unfortunately a large chunk of the voting populace–including a lot of reliable Democrat voters–are still very much pro-Israel.

That said, I would also like to confirm: Assume for the moment that Biden and Trump wins the nomination, and there is no change in the status quo between now and November (this is unlikely, given Biden’s recent shifts in policy signaling a possible change in trend, but I want to check against the worst case scenario). Would you still vote for Biden, or would you stay home? Would you staying home potentially affect the outcome (I.e. are you in a solid red/blue state like Alabama or California, or are you in a swing state like Michigan or Georgia)? What would need to change for you to vote for Biden in November?

Oh, I think they can precisely articulate exactly what they’re angry about if you let them, but they know if they do that in public it’ll show just how crazy, hateful, ignorant, and bigoted they are. What they’re struggling with is how to articulate what they’re angry about in a way that doesn’t immediately expose them as a modern-day KKK for LGBT+ folk.

Yeah, IIRC a knight’s suit of armor and weapons alone were worth more than most people in medieval times would ever earn in their entire lifetime. Knights traveling on horseback were the modern day equivalent of a celebrity rolling around town in a Ferrari

The problem is that there’s no incentive for employees to stay beyond a few years. Why spend months or years training someone if they leave after the second year?

But then you have to question why employees aren’t loyal any longer, and that’s because pensions and benefits have eroded, and your pay doesn’t keep up as you stay longer at a company. Why stay at a company for 20, 30, or 40 years when you can come out way ahead financially by hopping jobs every 2-4 years?

It makes sense to judge how closely LLMs mimic human learning when people are using it as a defense to AI companies scraping copyrighted content, and making the claim that banning AI scraping is as nonsensical as banning human learning.

But when it’s pointed out that LLMs don’t learn very similarly to humans, and require scraping far more material than a human does, suddenly AIs shouldn’t be judged by human standards? I don’t know if it’s intentional on your part, but that’s a pretty classic example of a motte-and-bailey fallacy. You can’t have it both ways.

Who even knows? For whatever reason the board decided to keep quiet, didn’t elaborate on its reasoning, let Altman and his allies control the narrative, and rolled over when the employees inevitably revolted. All we have is speculation and unnamed “sources close to the matter,” which you may or may not find credible.

Even if the actual reasoning was absolutely justified–and knowing how much of a techbro Altman is (especially with his insanely creepy project to combine cryptocurrency with retina scans), I absolutely believe the speculation that the board felt Altman wasn’t trustworthy–they didn’t bother to actually tell anyone that reasoning, and clearly felt they could just weather the firestorm up until they realized it was too late and they’d already shot themselves in the foot.

…So your metric of “too much AI safety” is that it won’t let you fuck the fish…?

The speculation I heard in the Ars Technica article is that the board was unhappy with how quickly he was pushing to commercialize OpenAI, and they were wary about all the AI side hustles he was starting, including an AI chip company to compete with nvidia.

Yeah, as someone in a tech job whose primary function is “parsing and interpreting logs” sometimes even the repeated flood of seemingly useless logs can be helpful. If nothing else, they explain why there aren’t any useful logs and that can guide how I respond to the problem.

The implication of this is you have an illithid tadpole in your dingdong and I hate my brain for giving me that mental image

5e (and BG3 in turn) even simplified Vancian casting compared to previous versions. Used to be that you had slots that you prepared a specific spell for. If you had four slots and needed to cast Magic Missile three times, but you used two of those slots to prepare Grease and Fog Cloud, you were out of luck.

Theoretically it can happen. In practical terms, 99% of those cases are out of three things:

• A charade to get an angry customer to go away (pretending to fire an employee)

• The last straw in a series of incidents that add up to justify firing the employee (i.e. the employee has repeatedly made a mistake with no improvement over a long period of time)

• Misconduct egregious enough to warrant firing them on the spot (for example, the employee punches a customer, or shows up to a job site blackout drunk)

The remaining 1% of cases are truly shitty managers that are a nightmare to work for.

Not OP, but I think the point they’re making is that LTT screwed up the video, and that the drama sparked from LTT’s screwup gave Billet a lot of publicity they wouldn’t have had otherwise.

Personally, I’d trade the publicity for my only working prototype and $2,000 GPU back and a video that didn’t shit on me, but if you believe any publicity is good publicity…

You know it’s coming. Why would a streaming company want a consumer buying one month, binging a single show they’re interested in, then immediately cancelling the subscription after, when you could guarantee a 6- or 12-month revenue stream for them?