Define “held accountable”?
If you mean who will pay out if there’s an accident, presumably Waymo will have found an insurer willing to cover them. But if you mean that someone out there must be punished to satisfy some sense of vengeance, then you may want to re-examine your values.
Thanks for that, though not for also obfuscating that it’s the President of Syria you’re talking about. It’s a very different story when you miss that part out, isn’t it?
What’s “ISIS in White House” in reference to? I don’t think there’s even any Muslims in the Trump cabinet, are there? I’m sure he’s made some sort of racist connection but it’s so tenuous I can’t even tell what it’s supposed to be.
Marrow was interested in “how public institutions decide what’s worth showing, and what happens when something outside that system appears within it”.
Wanky pretentious edgelord crap. It’s obvious what happens when you put up a shit AI-generated poster in a museum without permission. Someone asks the staff why there’s a shit AI-generated poster on the wall and they take it down. Other artists have done the “sneaking something into a gallery” thing way better than this many times before.
Sure, Art is supposed to make you think and react. But art that makes you think “wow that guy completely failed at every aspect of this” is of no value. The true scandal isn’t that he did it, it’s that some dumbfuck at the BBC thought it was worth reporting on.
Just so nobody forgets, North Face planted ads on Wikipedia, and then threw one of their regional managers under the bus when they got caught, as if to claim that it wasn’t really the real company doing it.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/05/29/lets-talk-about-the-north-face-defacing-wikipedia/
Hopping on this to share that Milo Learns made by some of my Cambodian friends also just added Japanese for conversation practice. It has an online community as well if you don’t like talking to an AI. But sadly it is freemium, so OP wins on that front. https://milo.niy.ai/
“Massive trillion dollar corporations are behaving absolutely fucking atrociously, so we need to do the same” is such an awful take that it makes me doubt the legitimacy of this user account.
You don’t even need to, you just need seven digits of numbers. As password formats go, it’s hella low entropy.
Yeah, Capitalism fundamentally isn’t “for all”, it’s for holders of Capital.
Only in the same way that you could always write your own newsletter and hand it out in the street. I feel like you’re wilfully missing the point there.
Pre-internet there was a certain amount of natural limit on how much bullshit one could spread, because you had to print physical newspapers and find distributors, which meant that you had to have a name and a business address people could find you at.
With 2000s Internet this limiter was removed, but counterbalanced by everyone being able to present their own side for the marketplace of ideas.
Now in 2025 we’re in the worst of both worlds, where a tiny number of trillion-dollar companies control 98% of Internet traffic and are making it clear that they have no qualms abusing that power to shape public discourse.
just got a bunch of his friends to agree with him
You mean the International Astronomical Union? I mean at some point if every world-level expert on the topic is saying the same thing, then maybe you need to let go of what Miss Honey told you in first grade.
A few years later: “dang, they knew all along”
This is one topic I’m quite willing to go into conspiracy theory territory on, because Google have a lot of very clever engineers and must surely know that their search is dogshit.
The only plausible explanation is that they’re somehow making more money doing this than they did by being quietly competent.
You don’t even need to reject the applicability of Gödel, because there’s no proof that our universe doesn’t include a bunch of undecidable things tucked away in the margins. Jupiter could be filled with complete nonsense for all we know.
Yeah, if you were to ask “do cisgender people like to be noticed?” people would assume you were being facetious.
I remember when rofl was ROTFL
I don’t belieeeeve it
First, there’s no “somehow magically” about it, the entire logic of the halting problem’s proof relies on being able to set up a contradiction. I’ll agree that returning undecidable doesn’t solve the problem as stated because the problem as stated only allows two responses.
My wider point is that the Halting problem as stated is a purely academic one that’s unlikely to ever cause a problem in any real world scenario. Indeed, the ability to say “I don’t know” to unsolvable questions is a hot topic of ongoing LLM research.
I hate this so much, because spouting statistics is the number one go-to of idiot racists and other bigots trying to justify their prejudices. The whole fucking point is that judging someone’s value someone based on physical attributes outside their control, is fucking evil, and increasing the accuracy of your algorithm only makes it all the more insidious.
The Economist has never been shy to post some questionable kneejerk shit in the past, but this is approaching a low even for them. Not only do they give the concept credibility, but they’re even going out of their way to dishonestly paint it as some sort of progressive boon for the poor.