I don't understand this registering business. In the US, you have to register with a political party to be able to vote for a candidate ? What if someone registers with multiple political parties ? Do people register with political parties they hate just to select a bad candidate ? Isn't it possible to beat up / kill the people "registered" with political parties you oppose - I am made to understand there is some "D" or "R" card people carry with them ?
Wikipedia (and some other Googling) gives a very politically correct kind of information, not these political hacking strategies.
It would have hit the statistics. Which stand at 1.1 million miles per human killed by human drivers - without being overseen by a(nother) professional at the ready to stop them from making mistakes.
AI - almost zero miles in this situation, with a much much smaller data set available.
True, but this makes all the other testing data for autonomous cars "safety" questionable as we don't know how many accidents were prevented by the humans who, in the other cases, were REALLY at the ready.
Autonomous vehicle was not at fault and they couldn't of prevented it, they'll probably resume testing shortly.....
Obviously they could of [sic] prevented it, by testing better / more on their private roads with their volunteers being killed rather than strangers.
With humans driving , "couldn't of prevented" has an established legal definition where the judge figures out if a reasonably trained and able driver could reasonably be expected to prevent it or not with a reasonably well maintained car. The right of humans to responsibly drive well maintained vehicles in spite of the risk that it carries, has a long case and legislative history.
The right of corporations to profit from improperly training their AIs and unleashing cars with them on public roads - not so much.
It is not only their duty to not keep secrets from their bosses, but take steps (press releases are one of the traditional forms of disclosure - which have been supplemented by newer vectors) to actively disclose them. If the disclosures fail, make fresh ones.
You could have figured this out. Not that I hope for anything better from one so proud of your own ignorance.
They have not publicly disclosed what chemicals were in apartment 11 where Morrow lived, only describing them as 'extremely volatile and unstable explosives.'
The extraordinary claim here is the following : Someone keeping things secret from their boss (the public is , directly or indirectly depending on your point of view, the boss of FBI) is being transparent, fair, honest, constitutional, and ethical.
If they had the details recorded under NDA or something similar for public institutions, by known unrelated experts in the field, and submitted the details to a court to get the demolition order, there could have been the justification of preventing idiots in the public from creating a ludicrously easy but highly dangerous substance.
Then "not necessarily" applies to "women who complained faced some sort of retaliation" as well.
That too will come out in investigation and discovery. Why is "women who complained faced some sort of retaliation" certain, and "some of the incidents that WERE reported were blown out of proportion or fabricated entirely" not necessarily so ?
Only your low mental capacity is preventing you from realizing that you lied to make a non-existent point - read the recent posts more carefully and you might realize you need redemption, I don't.
Or they could simply stop recommending videos based on popularity. Provide a random sampling rather than "the creme of the crop".
But Youtube's problem is that only one in a million videos on it make any sense at all. And with this metric, the conspiracy theories and extremist videos are "good". Random samples would be complete garbage - incomprehensible accent, simple copy from other places, some guy stammering, adjusting his camera and laughing instead of focusing on content etc. Youtube doesn't want to expose the fact that most videos on it are complete garbage.
Users wouldn't mind complete garbage videos existing, if users are extremely unlikely to encounter the complete garbage videos,
Because when I answered your question initially, you indicated in your reply that this was not the question you asked.
That is a lie - I patiently rephrased one of the points, hopefully suited to your lower level of comprehension, realizing you are only capable of a single point in a post.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand this registering business. In the US, you have to register with a political party to be able to vote for a candidate ? What if someone registers with multiple political parties ? Do people register with political parties they hate just to select a bad candidate ? Isn't it possible to beat up / kill the people "registered" with political parties you oppose - I am made to understand there is some "D" or "R" card people carry with them ?
Wikipedia (and some other Googling) gives a very politically correct kind of information, not these political hacking strategies.
"Move" is what a fluid needs to do to change shape.
It doesn't change shape to focus. It changes shape to change focal length. Even without changing shape, it is focused on something.
It would have hit the statistics. Which stand at 1.1 million miles per human killed by human drivers - without being overseen by a(nother) professional at the ready to stop them from making mistakes.
AI - almost zero miles in this situation, with a much much smaller data set available.
Ok, so previous night no human drove in that locality ? And this woman never crossed a road in her life before this?
True, but this makes all the other testing data for autonomous cars "safety" questionable as we don't know how many accidents were prevented by the humans who, in the other cases, were REALLY at the ready.
Autonomous vehicle was not at fault and they couldn't of prevented it, they'll probably resume testing shortly.....
Obviously they could of [sic] prevented it, by testing better / more on their private roads with their volunteers being killed rather than strangers.
With humans driving , "couldn't of prevented" has an established legal definition where the judge figures out if a reasonably trained and able driver could reasonably be expected to prevent it or not with a reasonably well maintained car. The right of humans to responsibly drive well maintained vehicles in spite of the risk that it carries, has a long case and legislative history.
The right of corporations to profit from improperly training their AIs and unleashing cars with them on public roads - not so much.
It is not only their duty to not keep secrets from their bosses, but take steps (press releases are one of the traditional forms of disclosure - which have been supplemented by newer vectors) to actively disclose them. If the disclosures fail, make fresh ones.
You could have figured this out. Not that I hope for anything better from one so proud of your own ignorance.
In this case, X is possible as well as not necessary. Y is also possible as well as not necessary.
But you say only "possible" for one, and "not necessary" for the other.
X = women who complained faced some sort of retaliation
Y = some of the incidents that WERE reported were blown out of proportion or fabricated entirely
This is why teaching creationism in public schools is outlawed. It is demonstrably false.
How would you "demonstrate" creationism is false ?
Or do you mean that teaching creationism in public schools is demonstrably not outlawed ?
They have not publicly disclosed what chemicals were in apartment 11 where Morrow lived, only describing them as 'extremely volatile and unstable explosives.'
The extraordinary claim here is the following : Someone keeping things secret from their boss (the public is , directly or indirectly depending on your point of view, the boss of FBI) is being transparent, fair, honest, constitutional, and ethical.
If they had the details recorded under NDA or something similar for public institutions, by known unrelated experts in the field, and submitted the details to a court to get the demolition order, there could have been the justification of preventing idiots in the public from creating a ludicrously easy but highly dangerous substance.
I posted the exact point of the AC in the quote.
"It is possible" does not answer the question that why "not necessarily" cannot be said about it.
When the best you can say about something is that "it is possible", you are essentially saying that it is not necessary.
Citation needed that only on twitter does popularity depend on their ability to sell their point.
Exactly. I'm waiting for that from you
I never said that only on twitter does popularity depend on their ability to sell their point.
Then "not necessarily" applies to "women who complained faced some sort of retaliation" as well.
That too will come out in investigation and discovery. Why is "women who complained faced some sort of retaliation" certain, and "some of the incidents that WERE reported were blown out of proportion or fabricated entirely" not necessarily so ?
Well that's all based on their ability to sell their point isn't it?
Exactly. Not based on being correct at all. Nor being right at all. Only based on their ability to sell their point.
On twitter
Citation needed that only on twitter does popularity depend on their ability to sell their point.
Even GP was saying this in the context of Youtube with which I agreed.
Only your low mental capacity is preventing you from realizing that you lied to make a non-existent point - read the recent posts more carefully and you might realize you need redemption, I don't.
Well that's all based on their ability to sell their point isn't it?
Exactly. Not based on being correct at all. Nor being right at all. Only based on their ability to sell their point.
Besides, we're talking about youtube not twitter. Remember that platform isn't limited to a short number of characters.
So with additional ways of appealing to emotions (sound, color, dramatic emoting), you are saying audience will become more logical ?
Anyway, no evidence so far of being right having much to do with becoming famous on Youtube.
Or they could simply stop recommending videos based on popularity. Provide a random sampling rather than "the creme of the crop".
But Youtube's problem is that only one in a million videos on it make any sense at all. And with this metric, the conspiracy theories and extremist videos are "good". Random samples would be complete garbage - incomprehensible accent, simple copy from other places, some guy stammering, adjusting his camera and laughing instead of focusing on content etc. Youtube doesn't want to expose the fact that most videos on it are complete garbage.
Users wouldn't mind complete garbage videos existing, if users are extremely unlikely to encounter the complete garbage videos,
If you're right, you'll end up famous
Citation required. Anti-citation provided.
I did not ask you to rephrase them. I asked you to elaborate on them.
So you admit to having lied, which I quote here : you indicated in your reply that this was not the question you asked ?
Because when I answered your question initially, you indicated in your reply that this was not the question you asked.
That is a lie - I patiently rephrased one of the points, hopefully suited to your lower level of comprehension, realizing you are only capable of a single point in a post.
Without refusing to elaborate, I ask why were you "unable" to address points (not refuse to).
How does this answer the question about your inability to address 2 simple points in a post ?
Is it against the TOS to use a burner phone for their service ?
Why were you unable to address both points?