Your evidence seems very anecdata. The graphite.io study does make an effort to quantify the false positive and false negative rates of the three detectors, rather than just saying “they work”. They generate 2000 ai articles and ask the detectors to evaluate them, measuring the false negatives (articles falsely IDd as human written); and they use a separate pre-AI dataset (years 2000-2022) to determine false positives.
What you’re seeing is the result of the USA voting in a party and president that made it clear beforehand that they were going to install puppet civil servants to do their will. Most other developed countries have avoided this scenario.
Other countries with good systems also have such people. America’s crime rate is far lower than the 1990s; the impression that you live in a crime-infested world is likely increased media coverage.
I think the real reason the US has poor public transit is that its transport landscape has been shaped by years of planning and funding decisions that have put the car first, and cities rebuilt accordingly.
America’s enormity also makes nationwide PT more difficult (but not impossible).
Then add the meritocratic attitude that if you can’t afford a car it’s somehow your fault, and you end up with little political and societal interest in a good public transit system.
No, the plasma forms a teardrop shape around small craft like Orion, completely cutting off radio comms. Larger craft like starship or the shuttle which have a roughly cylindrical shape (vs Orion’s circular cross section) aren’t fully enclosed by the plasma. The shuttle had a transmitter attached to its tail for later flights, which could send back telemetry during re-entry.
This feels like an AI-generated list of products with no actual hands-on time to let me get a feel if any of the services actually work vs their feature list. Revising the language/structure to not reek of AI would make me think more care had gone into it, and thus be more trustworthy.
I agree that attenborough’s documentaries are carefully composed, presumably to be suitable for a British family audience of the 1970s. You seem to uncharitably ascribe intentional malice to this approach rather than it being a product of its time and cultural values. For what it’s worth, I think his documentaries have done much more good (in raising awareness of the natural world and the need to conserve it) rather than harm.
But what I don’t understand is that you quote the OP article re climate change and racism, but then go off on a tangent re Attenborough? Sounds like you have an axe to grind.
More informed by that comment, really? Did you read this[0]? As someone disinterested in the topic, the controversy seems very overblown and a knee jerk response. His position seems to have been pretty consistent over time.
Your framing is interesting. You may feel that you can’t change who you are in real life, but people have a choice on how they behave online (or choose not to engage at all). So you could choose to be nice (or at least not a jerk); I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t get people writing to your employer complaining. I’d argue that if you know you’re sometimes a jerk, it’d be less stressful for you and others if you didn’t bring that energy online.
The V&A has not just acquired the video, but reconstructed a version of the page, as it would have looked in 2006...The V&A said the video is now considered “a foundational moment in the rise of user-generated content”.
It said the reconstructed page marks an early example of User Interface design conventions, such as badges, rating buttons, sharing and recommendation features – features which continue to shape the internet today.
Previous digital acquisitions include apps such as WeChat, Flappy Bird, EUKI, and the design for the mosquito emoji.
You could look at this in at least two different ways. 1) journalism, and how it’s a better story if the kid is a self-contained genius; or 2) having youth be thankful for mentoring, and to understand little in life is achieved without others’ assistance.
I don’t consider that the parent comment is seeking to “steal the spotlight”; just that it’d be a more realistic appraisal of how success is achieved.
Two options, not two choices. (Unless you have a proportional representation voting system like ireland, in which case you can vote for as many candidates as you like in descending order of preference)
Anyway, there’s a third option: spoil your vote. In the recent Irish presidential election, 13% of those polled afterwards said they spoiled their votes, due to a poor selection of candidates from which to choose.
The two dishwashers idea is neat, but the cupboard capacity is greater than that of a second dishwasher; and we haven’t got the space!