Anyone remember when Wikipedia was the default byword for Unreliable Internet Source? The internet used to be good.

deleted by creator

Specifying a whole group and not giving names seems like it should probably be unconstitutional? Like you could just use it to unilaterally undo any law, which isn’t the intent of the pardon system. IANAL

OP should have specified Brewster’s Millions rules to avoid all the boring answers

UP AND AT THEM

But what if bias was not the reason? What if your face gave genuinely useful clues about your probable performance?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your phrasing implies that the issue was that farmers all sat about at home not working because they weren’t getting paid. There were plenty of problems, but I’ve seen scant evidence that that the threat of getting fired for not doing your job was even in the top three.

Yeah, Capitalism fundamentally isn’t “for all”, it’s for holders of Capital.

It’s shocking because of how easy it was for them to do the decent thing. Literally all they had to do was nothing, but they paid for the lawyers and did the work, and made a conscious effort to fuck over the most vulnerable people in the country.

A few years later: “dang, they knew all along”

I can tolerate that, the one I can’t stand is Netflix shows where the ~dialogue is a mumbled quiet~ and random bits of foley try to blow my speakers out.

It makes it especially noticeable just how dodgy a lot of foley/sound editing work is, eg when someone throwing a punch and missing still goes WHOOSH at the same volume they use for gunshots. There’s YA shows now where even the camera panning gets a sound effect ffs

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.

It doesn’t stand up on its own terms on other levels as well.

Even the most cynical misandrist interpretation of how research is funded would still lean towards men being given the agency on whether sex lead to pregnancy.

He declared that “cis” was a slur and banned Twitter users who used it