That’s why these discussions generally come down to understanding/misunderstanding ‘instincts’. Certain breeds have at least broadly understood instincts when it comes to offensive/defensive postures, and those instincts may never be triggered in their day to day, even year to year, routine…but extrapolating that to mean ‘my little Cuddles would never X if Y happened’ is dangerous and selfish.
Maybe think of it like one of those big walls of post office mailboxes…behind the wall is your computer and an app might be waiting for a message at box 22 or box 45678. You could close all the boxes and nothing could get in, or you could open one or all of them and allow people to deliver messages to them.
If you connect your computer directly to the internet, anyone who knows your IP address could say 'deliver message X to port 22 at ip address <your ip address> and the program watching that box would get the message.
If you put a router in the mix, and multiple computers, the router has the same block of boxes, but if someone sends a message to one of the boxes it just sets there. If you set up ‘forwarding’, sending a message to your ip address gets the message to the router, but if you forward box 22 from your router to a specific computer on your network, then the router takes a message at box 22 on itself and ‘forwards’ it to box 22 on whatever computer you specific (using internal ip addresses).
You could map box 22 on your router to any other box on your computer…like port 22 coming into your router might get sent to port 155 on your computer…this is useful if you don’t want external people just exploring and lazily breaking into your computer using known vulnerabilities. Lots of ports are ‘common’, so an ftp hack on port 22 is easy, and might be ‘slightly’ harder if you tell your computer to actually look for ftp traffic on port 3333 or something.
I think this is a little over-simplified. If there are only a few tables it likely happens, but with current staffing, even before covid, if a servers section is full there’s no way they can watch for tiny signals from every table. Heck it’s hard to even catch your servers attention in most restaurants during busy times between when they are taking orders and actually serving other tables.
Sub-protocol here…you can walk on the right but don’t stand on the left. Kind of like the fast and slow lanes on the road.
I feel like it won’t be AI until we figure out how to point it back at itself, have it review its own answers and then be ‘happy’ when it’s answers are right. Not necessarily like if the user gives it a good score, but if it recognizes an answer it had given was actually used, or a prediction it makes if proved true (if I answer this way, the user is likely to ask this as its next question, etc) and it starts changing its behaviour, and asking itself questions to get better at that.
Soap over the main parts, and lather with that over everything
Same reason people have gone on for a million years. Noe of that matters or is really as bad as it sound at an individual level. Individually you have it better now than at any point in history, asking why ‘you’ should go on because of the unknown future effects of the climate crisis (which is real enough, and shouldn’t be understated) sounds more like depression than a valid outlook that people should have considering actual world events.
Even the worst off people on earth, on average, are better off now than they were 1000s or even 100s of years ago. There have always been poverty, starvation, wars, rich taking advantage of the poor, and fewer safeguards or oversight on top of that.
Same reason people have gone on for a million years. Noe of that matters or is really as bad as it sound at an individual level. Individually you have it better now than at any point in history, asking why ‘you’ should go on because of the unknown future effects of the climate crisis (which is real enough, and shouldn’t be understated) sounds more like depression than a valid outlook that people should have considering actual world events.
Even the worst off people on earth, on average, are better off now than they were 1000s or even 100s of years ago. There have always been poverty, starvation, wars, rich taking advantage of the poor, and fewer safeguards or oversight on top of that.
That is true, which is why most of the reports have to have some meta-analysis on them to be useful, but where dog breed and injury type/circumstances are broadly available within the report, breeds like labrador, spaniel, chihuahua, poodle, etc (and other, reasonably recognizable breeds) the injures are almost overwhelmingly related to non-life-threatening injuries and/or unusual circumstances (feral dogs, part of packs, extreme neglect or abuse) while deaths or serious, life-threatening instances where breeds seem reasonably documented, 60%+ are from the three commonly expected breed/types, which very heavily outweighs the percent of those breeds in the population.
If type of dog commonly labeled ‘pitbulls’ made up 60% of the population and were involved in 60% of attacks, that would basically mean they posed no more threat than any other breed…if they only make up 1% of the population and are involved in 60% of life-threatening attacks, it’s fair to say that ‘breed’ is extremely dangerous. It’s much closer to the second example than that first. If you wanted to make a good argument, if you could identify some specific breed that is commonly identified as ‘pitbull’ but which arguably are ‘not’ involved in life-threatening attacks, that might be worth highlighting, but unfortunately, just like everyone ‘calling everything that looks vaguely like a pitbull, a pitbull’…the instincts that earn then the poor reputation are just as spread out across the group as the physically recognizable traits.
Basically, the response to your comment is ‘yeah, but…’ because even though you’re right that we probably will never know exactly what breed caused which injury, there is an obvious enough pattern that pretending there isn’t a pretty heavy relationship between dogs ‘significantly mixed’ with pitbull and rottweilers and serious attacks is either intentionally deceiving or ignorant.