> no longer need to worry about heating due to climate change
I'm nearly positive that was sarcasm.
> Deaths from all natural disasters have dramatically decreased over the last century.
Because of our ability to predict them, and due to advances in scientific knowledge that allows us to more safely handle them. It's not because they've become less deadly. They're also becoming more frequent, and deaths alone isn't their only problem. They also drive loss of shelter, migrations, economic damage, etc.
> you claim my comment is propaganda when I cite a scientific source
Yes, plenty of science is propaganda. The study you cited wasn't propaganda, but the way in which you used it was, because it's not applicable to the way you're using it.
Direct exposure to ambient heat is only one of the many issues related to climate change, and one of the least deadly. As I pointed out, the study didn't include wet bulb events, so even direct heat exposure wasn't properly covered in the study in terms of climate change.
This study doesn't factor in droughts, floods, crop death (and starvation), and other non-direct effects. It also doesn't consider wet-bulb events, because it's looking at average ambient temperatures.
I don't think this is climate change propaganda, but your application of this study by evoking it in a discussion about climate change feels like it.
> I think the notability standard is way too strict and gives way too much weight to main stream media sources as the blessed arbiters of what is notable.
They're saying that main stream media sources are what can be used to define something is notable or not. The question isn't "Is the Daily Stormer" notable (it is), it's should the daily stormer be usable as a source to determine if something is notable or not (it shouldn't be, obviously).
I don't think you understand the scale of "running Wikipedia". I do. I worked there for years when there were 100 engineers and they were severely understaffed.
Wikipedia is: mediawiki (and its development), wikimedia cloud services (which I built) that runs tools and provides services for developers (including volunteers and tool authors), server/network infrastructure, wikidata, search, etc.
Mediawiki itself is extremely complicated to build and run, and it's running for numerous languages across multiple projects (wikipedia, commons, wikidata, wiktionary, etc etc).
I'm leaving out a lot of the other things handled by the engineering teams, but it's considerably more complex than you think it is.
You generally need to wire libraries in to your service, and you may be using the library in a slightly different way than normal. AIs are perfectly capable of doing this.
Back to the original point, though: most software engineering work isn't novel. Most people are working on slightly different iterations of the same thing, but with the aim of different products. You can have completely different products that use nearly the same patterns as most other services.
To put it bluntly: we don't need AI to generate novel code for the vast majority of the software being built.
Sadly in Tokyo, most businesses post their info to twitter or instagram, but in both cases you're able to read without an account (not well, but it's possible).
How can you fight when your power has been taken away from you? The reason I'm saying you're part of the problem is because you're blaming victims for the situation they're in without realizing that you're up next, and others like you are going to scream "why aren't you doing MORE TO HELP?" while you're screaming "Why isn't anyone helping ME?".
Southern states have been stripping people's rights away for decades.
This both sides thing is stupid. Though there's always some form of military actions under either Democrats or Republicans, Republicans consistently start unilateral (and illegal) wars that leave us in massive quagmires, leave power imbalances in the middle east, and destabilize things considerably.
AI models will simply build the ads into the responses, seamlessly. How do you filter out ads when you search for suggestions for products, and the AI companies suggest paid products in the responses?
Based on current laws, does this even have to be disclosed? Will laws be passed to require disclosure?
Using Lyft, Uber, or Waymo in San Francisco is slow, especially during peak times. To go across town in NYC by train, it would take 5-10 times as long to go that same distance in SF by car. If you have to cross a bridge or tunnel, it's going to be even longer during peak times.
That's the whole problem. Car transportation simply doesn't scale, so there will never be an option to use waymo that's as fast and cheap as the subway. It's worth calling out that an efficient train system is vital to keeping car traffic moving quickly, because once everyone is in a car, it's gridlock.
This is satire. Its purpose is to use exaggeration to provide comedy while also drawing attention to issues.
Obviously the intended use and design of AI isn't to scam the elderly, but it's extremely efficient at doing it, and has no guard rails to help prevent it.
Why is anyone allowed to make a digital copy of me, without my permission, and then use that to call my relatives? It should be illegal to use it and it should be illegal to even generate it. Sure, it's already illegal to defaud people, but that's simply not enough at this point. The AI companies producing these models should be held liable for this form of fraud, as they're not providing any form of protection.
You're exactly the person that this article is satirizing.