It's a way to get more content, some of it unique to their platform. Find an under-utilized source of podcasts, or anything really, and develop it.
The same thing had some success on YouTube, before the great demonetization happened. I guess Google is working on the assumption that they can fix that.
Google runs YouTube. Among other things that make the recently demonitized videos list is my SO's coming out story and history of why we celebrate Pride Day, with...no sign whatsoever which part they found objectionable so let's go with 'general LGBT* content.' My SO has taken the video down, because, to quote my SO, "I didn't need that crap."
If they really mean to fix that, maybe they ought to fix YouTube so we're not going "Yeeeeah, you just are using us...again."
It's that in a socialist society, as well. You don't want it to be possible for somebody to be locked out completely from being capable of doing financial transactions--not from being able to spend money, nor from being able to be given money. And no, having anonymous means doesn't fix this. It's a bad kludge, if nothing else because you are using the present existence of such to pretend that a proper fix is not necessary.
If you read the German-language discussion, they do dispose of returned merchandise in secondary markets whenever they can. It is only stuff that they can't dispose of through secondary markets that is destroyed.
And the complaint appears to be about the amount of things that they cannot dispose of in secondary markets, which suggests that Germany is trying to basically put on a show to improve their standing among the anti-capitalist Greens or distract people from problems they have caused.
I know the rules can vary depending on how you're buying it--returned-as-defective stuff tends to get sold locally where I am, because a physical inspection matters, though in theory you probably could sell known-defective items to people who won't have a chance to inspect it before the purchase is final as long as you're clear and accurate in informing the buyer about what they are purchasing. (I've seen a car listed online as going for, basically, just enough money to make it legally a sale--so the title can be transferred--with it openly said that it does not run and moving it after purchasing will be the Buyer's Problem. I actually do have the contacts now that I would need to make such a deal worth considering--namely, my current partner would probably be kept happily busy getting it back into working order, and for all I know could get the truck running again then and there.)
So in countries with worse consumer laws what happens to returned items? How is it better than the EU?
Some of them it's not an issue of 'worse' consumer laws--if the consumer laws say that, as long as I am informed of the risks ("This was returned for being buggy, may be firmware, may be software, may be hardware, may be luser error") then I cannot complain if, surprise surprise, I just got a buggy piece of hardware.
I know that where I live in the US, this applies for anything I can physically inspect before buying--if I knowingly choose to buy, say, a dead microwave? I'm probably going to look very silly if I attempt to sue, much like if I chose to buy a box of Very Open Knockoffs and complained because I got...Very Open Knockoffs, which was exactly what I was told I was buying.
From the sound of it, Germany's consumer protection laws may be worse in the sense that they screw everybody over--if you've had problems with people suing because they got a dead microwave when that is what they knew they were getting, that means that it's too risky for you to sell me one which may be dead even if you do tell me as much...which means I can't buy a defective item when I want to. (I might wish to have parts, or want it for purposes where its defects are not an issue at all--a smartphone that's useless as a phone can still be used for a lot.)
Next thing might be a measless or syphilis epidemy.
What do you mean, 'next thing'? Measles epidemic was a while back, syphilis epidemic is current; I think this year got us our first confirmed strain of syphilis that is resistant to every drug we've got.
Of course, one reason to require all bloggers be registered and having to cost a lot to get registered is so you can shut out bloggers who dare question whatever the sociopolitical elite's dogma is--including all facts that might contradict or at least embarrass our proper lords and masters.
No, banning hacking is already covered by laws such as the CFAA, and you know that. Besides, this breach wasn't the result of a hack. The data was left unsecured on a server. Your comment isn't helpful. As for bans on hacking a much better idea to improve stricter standards on the handling of information like DNA test results. A fairly straightforward solution in the United States would be to make businesses like MyHeritage subject to the data protections included in HIPAA. If you're handing DNA information and doing business in the United States, you would be subject to that law.
I'd actually be very, very surprised if HIPAA doesn't already cover DNA information, especially given that there are laws specifically in place covering genetic privacy to pretty much because it was decided that genetic discrimination is a problem that is most easily solved before it's particularly feasible.
A child, constantly exposed to abuse and derision will, in the absence of abuse and derision, create their own self abuse and derision in their mind, even when the situations they experience do not warrant it.
Yep, no correlations between neural networks in computers and humans. Absolutely nothing to learn. No way to make any inferences or structure future experiments based off of this. Worthless. Just like me.
Citations or GTFO, especially since your first statement is not a claim supported by the evidence I've dealt with--and, worse, to claim as much without serious and significant evidence in support of it is a form of abuse. The evidence I've run across while getting my degree in psychology actually is more that a child constantly exposed to abuse and derision may not have a single lone tiny clue that this is not, in fact, normal behavior.
However, if you only show a child pictures of violence, the child will still be able to properly recognize it when you show them a picture with no violence within it. The closest you can get to screwing up a human's visual recognition processing here is deletion--for example, lose the right part of your brain (or have it come in hosed) and surprise, color is gone from your life forever, and if this happened by accident after birth, you will eventually lose all memories of color. (This happened to an artist, and massively improved the quality of his art.)
The thing is? Aside from a few things that humans are hard-wired to recognize very easily, they are quite capable of recognizing that what they are seeing is, for example, an inkblot.
Also, I was being very charitable when I said that the inkblot test has been pretty much discredited for a long time. Let me be more accurate, as somebody who actually got one of their degrees in psych: Inkblot tests are a steaming pile of male bovine manure. The validity is low, the accuracy is lousy...and they do not say anything whatsofuckingever about the 'emotions' of weak AIs like these because weak AIs have no emotions. All it tells us is that, if you train an image-recognition bot on a particular set of images, it will--unlike most humans over the age of 0--see those and only those even in entirely content-free images.
This would be a good study...if they published it as the Captain Obvious explanation of why flagging and take-down bots have the false positive problems they do. This? This just raises questions like how you manage to be in MIT's AI lab and not know your dead basics of AIs.
You seem not to use Amazon.
In this case Amazon is the broker, handeling the order, the payment and perhaps the shipping.
The seller is from whom ever the plaintiffs bought the ifems.
Can't be so hard to grasp.
Yep. But in cases like this, I might actually go with the rule being that the broker has to demonstrate that the item provided was from the specific seller and that they can provide the necessary information to sue the correct party--in other words, you have to keep your records properly and, if you're handling the shipping, you need to keep your warehouse straight as well so all items can be traced back.
No it isn't. Humans can generalize and understand plenty of things they have not seen directly.
I can show a child three pictures of rowboats, and then show her a sailboat, and she will know that this is also a "boat" because it floats on water and is used for transportation.
ML doesn't work that way (yet). Even to recognize a rowboat, it would need THOUSANDS of examples, and it would not generalize by understanding the purpose and function.
Not only that, but an AI trained on rowboats will see rowboats in any image possible, even if a human will correctly recognize that it's not got a single rowboat at all--and inkblot tests themselves have been pretty much discredited for a long time, so...
Honestly, this sounds like a group of researchers who should have their funding taken away because I'm not sure how anybody who actually has firm enough understanding of how any of this works to be at a legit AI lab could have reached this conclusion. It's not even like it's a bad idea--depending on what Norman's false positive rate is, Norman could easily be put into place as a bot flagging possibly-disturbing images for human review, using the data from having Norman's work reviewed to reduce Norman's error rate so human verification would become less necessary.
But Norman is not a person. Norman is incapable of being psychopathic...though, if the ability to distinguish between weak and strong AI is normal in that lab, I'm not going to be particularly surprised if the first strong AI that comes out of there wants to kill all humans.
Neither do doctors, actually, since the primary mechanism of 'curing' depression in the 1st world is to pump patients full of poorly-understood pharmaceuticals with negative side effects.
And yet the people suffering from chronic depression turn into functioning members of society when they do take those pills. So I'll take the non-understanding doctors thank you. They do a better job than the "just enjoy life more" happy hippies who convince people with serious problems that drugs aren't helping and they just need to absorb positive energy from unicorn farts.
I used to know someone like this. We cut ties after she convinced someone to not take anti-depressants anymore and doctors were just poisoning her. 2 months later the found that someone dead with her head in an old school oven.
Are you kidding me? The default for all psychotropic drugs is 'poorly-understood' because we pretty recently finally hit the point where we understood what is going on in the gray jello that fills most people's skulls to the point that we could realize how little we actually know. All of it is, on the biochemical level, poorly-understood--to say otherwise would be like pretending you can understand every little bit of a computer just because you know a few commands and can name all its parts. (And by name, I mean "use a word that denotes a specific part," the names certainly don't tell you what it does.) A lot of the medicine for psychiatric conditions is pretty much the pharmaceutical version of cargo programming.
We've also right now got a tendency to ignore some possible antidepressants--there's evidence that nicotine is, in fact, not only quite effective but has drastically fewer side effects and is usable by people who cannot take any of the standard antidepressants. This currently only comes up in begrudging admissions that this may play a role in why people have trouble quitting smoking--the idea that maybe you should offer them the (distinctly better) option of taking their nicotine in nice, standard pharmaceutical-grade doses is anathema. (Seriously, smoking a plant is a lousy delivery mechanism.) There's also a general...neglect of checking to make sure the depression is not actually a symptom of something else--depression turns up with depressing regularity on the symptom lists for endocrine disorders and does seem to be the one people notice first or the one they'll bring to their doctor's attention.
Oh, and being depressed means you actually are going to more accurately judge some things, so...basically? When your standard treatment for "Doctor, I feel depressed" is just a prescription for whatever antidepressant the GP happens to favor currently, the overall and probably accurate perception is that they just want you to STFU...which, well, probably doesn't do anything helpful, especially if the antidepressant du jour is not a good match for that particular patient, and for some patients all of the ones currently offered have sufficiently nasty side effects to not be worth whatever improvement comes with them. (Yes, yes it matters. Why, we don't know quite yet but probably genetics, we will probably figure it out eventually. Neuroscience is fun if you want a field which has a lot of work needing to be done, not so great if you for some reason are wanting a field which has no major problems left.)
Seriously, I actually do know one person who pretty much is stuck with nicotine--I dug up the lead there, actually--because all of the official antidepressants were all side effect...no effect on the depression, aside from making it deeply understandable and reasonable. It's not cured--but psychiatric meds do not cure anyfuckingthing and anybody who claims otherwise is not supposed to be able to prescribe them.
After browsing the summary of the article, if they didn't like the result, it was statistically meaningless.
Traditional methods for quitting (patches / gum): 2.9%
eCigs: 4.8%
Cash + traditional quit methods: 9.8%
Cash + traditional + threat of taking back the cash: 12.7%
Cash + eCigs: ???
The 4.8% and 9.8% results were deemed "not statistically meaningful.", whereas apparently the 2.9% and the 12.7% were OK.
Thank you for looking! It does sound strange, since about the only way you'd get that is if each group had a different alpha--a threshold for the results being statistically significant--which you're not supposed to do, because it screws with the validity.
That is really the same point I was making. But that definition is used by professionals in those areas.
The general public has a somewhat different idea of what it means.
And, arguably, when it comes to cars the general public probably is right in what autopilot ought to mean, and that 'probably' becomes 'definitely' the moment you decide to sell the cars to the general public. With ships and planes, it takes a good deal of the task off the pilot's hands, which happens to be a vastly simpler task to do with air- and watercraft than it is with a car. 'Keeping going in the same direction at the same speed' can be rigged in a car with a length of rope and a brick.
It may be more effective, therefore, to use that--the amount of the task it can take over from a human--to define what's required to call something an autopilot for a car: It has to be close to fully autonomous, requiring only minimal/occasional attention from a human.
Or perhaps he has actually read Tesla's own words, which document the various issues Tesla had with mental health. Incidentally, if you check the timeline? Edison's smear campaign against Tesla definitely looks to have been a significant factor in Tesla's decline there.
Oh, a lot of us are quite able to grasp that it's a direct reference to the USSR propaganda publication of the same name, whose name was incredibly ironic in practice.
Names for projects tend to be prophetic, if nothing else because they say a lot about the expectations and opinions of the people who started it and will influence those who join in later. (This is a good reason to choose names with positive connotations, or use made-up words.) Naming something aiming to push for the news media to be more credible--which would hopefully also include less bias as well as more accuracy--after a paper that was so known for lies that people were outright surprised to learn that it had occasionally published the truth? Not a good sign.
If the reference was necessary, tack on an Anti- or otherwise riff on it being in opposition to modern incarnations of Pravda.
The same public that can't differentiate -or simply doesn't care about- the difference between fact and fake news?
The public has for a long time now been calling out and correcting the media on all sorts of stories. The public, far from "not being able to differentiate" has a better track record of understanding what is real and what is not, than the press itself has for some time...
I'm gonna need some references, if I'm gonna buy that...
You somehow missed that the trust in the press is on the decline?
I'm really not sure what the point of this study was. If the summary's accurate, all it found out was something we already knew: that the key factor on if you've got any chance of quitting is if you want to quit or not.
Anybody willing to RTFA to find out if they checked if combos of quitting aids and bribe to motivate people to want to quit are more effective than just one tactic on its own? That'd get this out of the 'water is wet' realm of studies...
So if I am a rich company I can afford it, I can pay it, but if I am some poor singer-songwriter, they can just use it to sell soap after 10 years?
I'd think it very safe to say that if you're a poor singer-songwriter, either you've spent way too much of the money your song has made on drugs or they'd probably not have even bothered using your song if it wasn't out of copyright--it wouldn't be worth spending actual money on.
You can also have the first renewals be pretty much token fees--payments made basically to show that you are still the owner of this intellectual property (to prevent the current problems caused by unclear ownership of IP), and that it's still worth at least a small amount of money to you. The latter end--say, anything past 75 years--might have a "Offered for sale for 1 year/until 1,000 copies are sold, whichever happens second" and "Copy maintained in good condition" as a requirement in addition to the higher fees.
If Disney wants an eternal copyright on Mickey Mouse--let them. Let them pay into the public coffers steadily increasing amounts of money to do it, instead of bribing politicians to just keep extending the copyright period for everybody..
Children of Rhesus negative mothers and Rhesus positive fathers will be Rhesus positive and at risk of their mother developing antibodies to their blood (as as second child after the mother has been sensitised by the first child, or as the result of the mother being exposed to the child's blood). High risk of still birth or major problems for the child.
The gene for Rh- is recessive. Citation. I ended up having to explain this to my Mom--whose genotype here I actually do know, without any need to test it, because I know hers and my maternal grandfather's blood types.
Before Anti-D injections were available, it was generally fatal and the only way a later child would survive is if the father's genotype was Rh+/Rh-. This was the case with my maternal grandfather; his Rh type was known at birth..and I know the genotypes for all of his siblings. (If you're wondering: Rh+/Rh-, all but the first died of hemolytic disease of the newborn. The firstborn, a boy, opted to slide down a railing and land on spikes...)
the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account,
It has been taken into account. No additional changes to regulations to support the weight of solar panels. I guess you don't know about fire codes but your roof has to be able to support a fully geared up firefighter.
I guess you don't know, but building codes and laws are different depending on where you live.
Where I live? It's a major issue if you want rooftop solar installed, because some only are strong enough to support an adult if that person is very careful about where they step. If memory serves, you also still are generally warned against trying to stand on a solar panel.
California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Actually, it does, but I was assuming you were bright enough to not need to be told that you can increase availability by building more. Even if the additional supply is outside of the cities it can still relieve the stress, especially if you couple it with a quality mass transit system to let people travel reliably in from the resulting exurbs.
They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
No, rooftop solar on every house is not required for the basic habitability of our planet. One-size-fits-all solutions generated by the ruling elite are inherently and unavoidably bigoted against those who are not part of that group. It's better to say that the switch must be made, but not setting by fiat from on high the exact method and means, especially since it will pick whatever is most fashionable and/or has the best lobbyists--not their quality as an option for sustainability.
While it may be a few decades before we have a huge mass of solar panels needing to be properly disposed of--recycled, preferably, since some of the materials involved are toxic and/or damaging to the environment to obtain--we need to start getting the systems in place now. (Recent source on the issues here, though I'd argue it's optimistic to assume that you have the expected lifespan of the panels to get the recycling systems in place--we have that long to plan for large-scale, yes, but we need to have started the small-scale recycling efforts, even if it's just ways to store panels safely in the meantime.)
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
Nobody claimed they were free but dude, solar panels are cheap as hell now. I mean, have you even looked at the price per watt in recent years?
The cost of the solar panels themselves is only part of the issue--the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account, as well as the simple fact that California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing. They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
If they want something like this, it'd be better to offer money up front for new houses to have solar panels on the roof than flat-out assume anybody wanting to own a house or build their own has money to burn.
It's as if Silicon Valley created a time machine that takes workers back to the (lack of) labour laws in the USA in the mid 19th century. At least that's what I understand from the ideas espoused as "the gig economy."
Some of it actually is going back to when you could have a decent chance of surviving as an independent worker.
I'd set one of the basic tests as this: If the standard deal is I can list on their app that "I will frob your widgets for $20" and they deal with getting me paid for a cut of whatever my fee for frobbing widgets is, I'm a contractor. If they pay me $10 an hour for frobbing widgets on demand, I'm an employee even if I get to pick my hours.
I have a better explanation. Nutropics is a dangerous quack scam patterned after similar quack scams that have plagued the public since recorded history.
But they aren't banning all the videos, only some. Why? Well, maybe because some pharmaceutical companies would like to get in on the scam with their patents for them.
Actually, YouTube only taking down a random portion of the offending channels is normal. There is no need for conspiracy theories; normal incompetence explains it just fine.
Seriously, it'll be news when YouTube manages to take down the worst offenders and only them, because it will mean that they've finally gotten their bots properly trained and monitored.
There are plenty of videos on youtube about psychics, ghosts, and ufo's, making claims not backed up by ANY kind of science. Youtube didn't remove those.
Those kinds of claims do not have the record of death and destruction that making (absurd) medical claims has. There might be some deaths that can be attributable to psychics (not counting psychic medicine), but...lots and lots of people have died because of snake oil peddling and quackery, sometimes quite horribly. (Link deals with Radithor, which was a patent medicine that was literally and openly radium-laced water, and the fate of a sports celebrity spokesperson had a three-bottle-a-day habit...)
Slashdot Mirror
It's a way to get more content, some of it unique to their platform. Find an under-utilized source of podcasts, or anything really, and develop it.
The same thing had some success on YouTube, before the great demonetization happened. I guess Google is working on the assumption that they can fix that.
Google runs YouTube. Among other things that make the recently demonitized videos list is my SO's coming out story and history of why we celebrate Pride Day, with...no sign whatsoever which part they found objectionable so let's go with 'general LGBT* content.' My SO has taken the video down, because, to quote my SO, "I didn't need that crap."
If they really mean to fix that, maybe they ought to fix YouTube so we're not going "Yeeeeah, you just are using us...again."
It's that in a socialist society, as well. You don't want it to be possible for somebody to be locked out completely from being capable of doing financial transactions--not from being able to spend money, nor from being able to be given money. And no, having anonymous means doesn't fix this. It's a bad kludge, if nothing else because you are using the present existence of such to pretend that a proper fix is not necessary.
If you read the German-language discussion, they do dispose of returned merchandise in secondary markets whenever they can. It is only stuff that they can't dispose of through secondary markets that is destroyed.
https://www.wortfilter.de/wp/hintergruende-zum-amazon-skandal-amazon-mitarbeiter-enthuellen-sie-vernichten-im-auftrag-des-onlineriesen-taeglich-zehntausende-neue-produkte/
And the complaint appears to be about the amount of things that they cannot dispose of in secondary markets, which suggests that Germany is trying to basically put on a show to improve their standing among the anti-capitalist Greens or distract people from problems they have caused.
how about checking for malware on every IoT washer or fridge.
Wasn't there an article on here not so long about about how some IoT things were shipping with malware infestations?
I know the rules can vary depending on how you're buying it--returned-as-defective stuff tends to get sold locally where I am, because a physical inspection matters, though in theory you probably could sell known-defective items to people who won't have a chance to inspect it before the purchase is final as long as you're clear and accurate in informing the buyer about what they are purchasing. (I've seen a car listed online as going for, basically, just enough money to make it legally a sale--so the title can be transferred--with it openly said that it does not run and moving it after purchasing will be the Buyer's Problem. I actually do have the contacts now that I would need to make such a deal worth considering--namely, my current partner would probably be kept happily busy getting it back into working order, and for all I know could get the truck running again then and there.)
So in countries with worse consumer laws what happens to returned items? How is it better than the EU?
Some of them it's not an issue of 'worse' consumer laws--if the consumer laws say that, as long as I am informed of the risks ("This was returned for being buggy, may be firmware, may be software, may be hardware, may be luser error") then I cannot complain if, surprise surprise, I just got a buggy piece of hardware.
I know that where I live in the US, this applies for anything I can physically inspect before buying--if I knowingly choose to buy, say, a dead microwave? I'm probably going to look very silly if I attempt to sue, much like if I chose to buy a box of Very Open Knockoffs and complained because I got...Very Open Knockoffs, which was exactly what I was told I was buying.
From the sound of it, Germany's consumer protection laws may be worse in the sense that they screw everybody over--if you've had problems with people suing because they got a dead microwave when that is what they knew they were getting, that means that it's too risky for you to sell me one which may be dead even if you do tell me as much...which means I can't buy a defective item when I want to. (I might wish to have parts, or want it for purposes where its defects are not an issue at all--a smartphone that's useless as a phone can still be used for a lot.)
Next thing might be a measless or syphilis epidemy.
What do you mean, 'next thing'? Measles epidemic was a while back, syphilis epidemic is current; I think this year got us our first confirmed strain of syphilis that is resistant to every drug we've got.
Of course, one reason to require all bloggers be registered and having to cost a lot to get registered is so you can shut out bloggers who dare question whatever the sociopolitical elite's dogma is--including all facts that might contradict or at least embarrass our proper lords and masters.
No, banning hacking is already covered by laws such as the CFAA, and you know that. Besides, this breach wasn't the result of a hack. The data was left unsecured on a server. Your comment isn't helpful. As for bans on hacking a much better idea to improve stricter standards on the handling of information like DNA test results. A fairly straightforward solution in the United States would be to make businesses like MyHeritage subject to the data protections included in HIPAA. If you're handing DNA information and doing business in the United States, you would be subject to that law.
I'd actually be very, very surprised if HIPAA doesn't already cover DNA information, especially given that there are laws specifically in place covering genetic privacy to pretty much because it was decided that genetic discrimination is a problem that is most easily solved before it's particularly feasible.
A child, constantly exposed to abuse and derision will, in the absence of abuse and derision, create their own self abuse and derision in their mind, even when the situations they experience do not warrant it.
Yep, no correlations between neural networks in computers and humans. Absolutely nothing to learn. No way to make any inferences or structure future experiments based off of this. Worthless. Just like me.
Citations or GTFO, especially since your first statement is not a claim supported by the evidence I've dealt with--and, worse, to claim as much without serious and significant evidence in support of it is a form of abuse. The evidence I've run across while getting my degree in psychology actually is more that a child constantly exposed to abuse and derision may not have a single lone tiny clue that this is not, in fact, normal behavior.
However, if you only show a child pictures of violence, the child will still be able to properly recognize it when you show them a picture with no violence within it. The closest you can get to screwing up a human's visual recognition processing here is deletion--for example, lose the right part of your brain (or have it come in hosed) and surprise, color is gone from your life forever, and if this happened by accident after birth, you will eventually lose all memories of color. (This happened to an artist, and massively improved the quality of his art.)
The thing is? Aside from a few things that humans are hard-wired to recognize very easily, they are quite capable of recognizing that what they are seeing is, for example, an inkblot.
Also, I was being very charitable when I said that the inkblot test has been pretty much discredited for a long time. Let me be more accurate, as somebody who actually got one of their degrees in psych: Inkblot tests are a steaming pile of male bovine manure. The validity is low, the accuracy is lousy...and they do not say anything whatsofuckingever about the 'emotions' of weak AIs like these because weak AIs have no emotions. All it tells us is that, if you train an image-recognition bot on a particular set of images, it will--unlike most humans over the age of 0--see those and only those even in entirely content-free images.
This would be a good study...if they published it as the Captain Obvious explanation of why flagging and take-down bots have the false positive problems they do. This? This just raises questions like how you manage to be in MIT's AI lab and not know your dead basics of AIs.
You seem not to use Amazon. In this case Amazon is the broker, handeling the order, the payment and perhaps the shipping. The seller is from whom ever the plaintiffs bought the ifems. Can't be so hard to grasp.
Yep. But in cases like this, I might actually go with the rule being that the broker has to demonstrate that the item provided was from the specific seller and that they can provide the necessary information to sue the correct party--in other words, you have to keep your records properly and, if you're handling the shipping, you need to keep your warehouse straight as well so all items can be traced back.
Yes, that's how learning works.
No it isn't. Humans can generalize and understand plenty of things they have not seen directly.
I can show a child three pictures of rowboats, and then show her a sailboat, and she will know that this is also a "boat" because it floats on water and is used for transportation.
ML doesn't work that way (yet). Even to recognize a rowboat, it would need THOUSANDS of examples, and it would not generalize by understanding the purpose and function.
Not only that, but an AI trained on rowboats will see rowboats in any image possible, even if a human will correctly recognize that it's not got a single rowboat at all--and inkblot tests themselves have been pretty much discredited for a long time, so...
Honestly, this sounds like a group of researchers who should have their funding taken away because I'm not sure how anybody who actually has firm enough understanding of how any of this works to be at a legit AI lab could have reached this conclusion. It's not even like it's a bad idea--depending on what Norman's false positive rate is, Norman could easily be put into place as a bot flagging possibly-disturbing images for human review, using the data from having Norman's work reviewed to reduce Norman's error rate so human verification would become less necessary.
But Norman is not a person. Norman is incapable of being psychopathic...though, if the ability to distinguish between weak and strong AI is normal in that lab, I'm not going to be particularly surprised if the first strong AI that comes out of there wants to kill all humans.
Neither do doctors, actually, since the primary mechanism of 'curing' depression in the 1st world is to pump patients full of poorly-understood pharmaceuticals with negative side effects.
And yet the people suffering from chronic depression turn into functioning members of society when they do take those pills. So I'll take the non-understanding doctors thank you. They do a better job than the "just enjoy life more" happy hippies who convince people with serious problems that drugs aren't helping and they just need to absorb positive energy from unicorn farts.
I used to know someone like this. We cut ties after she convinced someone to not take anti-depressants anymore and doctors were just poisoning her. 2 months later the found that someone dead with her head in an old school oven.
Are you kidding me? The default for all psychotropic drugs is 'poorly-understood' because we pretty recently finally hit the point where we understood what is going on in the gray jello that fills most people's skulls to the point that we could realize how little we actually know. All of it is, on the biochemical level, poorly-understood--to say otherwise would be like pretending you can understand every little bit of a computer just because you know a few commands and can name all its parts. (And by name, I mean "use a word that denotes a specific part," the names certainly don't tell you what it does.) A lot of the medicine for psychiatric conditions is pretty much the pharmaceutical version of cargo programming.
We've also right now got a tendency to ignore some possible antidepressants--there's evidence that nicotine is, in fact, not only quite effective but has drastically fewer side effects and is usable by people who cannot take any of the standard antidepressants. This currently only comes up in begrudging admissions that this may play a role in why people have trouble quitting smoking--the idea that maybe you should offer them the (distinctly better) option of taking their nicotine in nice, standard pharmaceutical-grade doses is anathema. (Seriously, smoking a plant is a lousy delivery mechanism.) There's also a general...neglect of checking to make sure the depression is not actually a symptom of something else--depression turns up with depressing regularity on the symptom lists for endocrine disorders and does seem to be the one people notice first or the one they'll bring to their doctor's attention.
Oh, and being depressed means you actually are going to more accurately judge some things, so...basically? When your standard treatment for "Doctor, I feel depressed" is just a prescription for whatever antidepressant the GP happens to favor currently, the overall and probably accurate perception is that they just want you to STFU...which, well, probably doesn't do anything helpful, especially if the antidepressant du jour is not a good match for that particular patient, and for some patients all of the ones currently offered have sufficiently nasty side effects to not be worth whatever improvement comes with them. (Yes, yes it matters. Why, we don't know quite yet but probably genetics, we will probably figure it out eventually. Neuroscience is fun if you want a field which has a lot of work needing to be done, not so great if you for some reason are wanting a field which has no major problems left.)
Seriously, I actually do know one person who pretty much is stuck with nicotine--I dug up the lead there, actually--because all of the official antidepressants were all side effect...no effect on the depression, aside from making it deeply understandable and reasonable. It's not cured--but psychiatric meds do not cure anyfuckingthing and anybody who claims otherwise is not supposed to be able to prescribe them.
After browsing the summary of the article, if they didn't like the result, it was statistically meaningless.
Traditional methods for quitting (patches / gum): 2.9% eCigs: 4.8% Cash + traditional quit methods: 9.8% Cash + traditional + threat of taking back the cash: 12.7% Cash + eCigs: ???
The 4.8% and 9.8% results were deemed "not statistically meaningful.", whereas apparently the 2.9% and the 12.7% were OK.
Thank you for looking! It does sound strange, since about the only way you'd get that is if each group had a different alpha--a threshold for the results being statistically significant--which you're not supposed to do, because it screws with the validity.
That is really the same point I was making. But that definition is used by professionals in those areas.
The general public has a somewhat different idea of what it means.
And, arguably, when it comes to cars the general public probably is right in what autopilot ought to mean, and that 'probably' becomes 'definitely' the moment you decide to sell the cars to the general public. With ships and planes, it takes a good deal of the task off the pilot's hands, which happens to be a vastly simpler task to do with air- and watercraft than it is with a car. 'Keeping going in the same direction at the same speed' can be rigged in a car with a length of rope and a brick.
It may be more effective, therefore, to use that--the amount of the task it can take over from a human--to define what's required to call something an autopilot for a car: It has to be close to fully autonomous, requiring only minimal/occasional attention from a human.
Or perhaps he has actually read Tesla's own words, which document the various issues Tesla had with mental health. Incidentally, if you check the timeline? Edison's smear campaign against Tesla definitely looks to have been a significant factor in Tesla's decline there.
Oh, a lot of us are quite able to grasp that it's a direct reference to the USSR propaganda publication of the same name, whose name was incredibly ironic in practice.
Names for projects tend to be prophetic, if nothing else because they say a lot about the expectations and opinions of the people who started it and will influence those who join in later. (This is a good reason to choose names with positive connotations, or use made-up words.) Naming something aiming to push for the news media to be more credible--which would hopefully also include less bias as well as more accuracy--after a paper that was so known for lies that people were outright surprised to learn that it had occasionally published the truth? Not a good sign.
If the reference was necessary, tack on an Anti- or otherwise riff on it being in opposition to modern incarnations of Pravda.
The same public that can't differentiate -or simply doesn't care about- the difference between fact and fake news?
The public has for a long time now been calling out and correcting the media on all sorts of stories. The public, far from "not being able to differentiate" has a better track record of understanding what is real and what is not, than the press itself has for some time...
I'm gonna need some references, if I'm gonna buy that...
You somehow missed that the trust in the press is on the decline?
I'm really not sure what the point of this study was. If the summary's accurate, all it found out was something we already knew: that the key factor on if you've got any chance of quitting is if you want to quit or not.
Anybody willing to RTFA to find out if they checked if combos of quitting aids and bribe to motivate people to want to quit are more effective than just one tactic on its own? That'd get this out of the 'water is wet' realm of studies...
So if I am a rich company I can afford it, I can pay it, but if I am some poor singer-songwriter, they can just use it to sell soap after 10 years?
I'd think it very safe to say that if you're a poor singer-songwriter, either you've spent way too much of the money your song has made on drugs or they'd probably not have even bothered using your song if it wasn't out of copyright--it wouldn't be worth spending actual money on.
You can also have the first renewals be pretty much token fees--payments made basically to show that you are still the owner of this intellectual property (to prevent the current problems caused by unclear ownership of IP), and that it's still worth at least a small amount of money to you. The latter end--say, anything past 75 years--might have a "Offered for sale for 1 year/until 1,000 copies are sold, whichever happens second" and "Copy maintained in good condition" as a requirement in addition to the higher fees.
If Disney wants an eternal copyright on Mickey Mouse--let them. Let them pay into the public coffers steadily increasing amounts of money to do it, instead of bribing politicians to just keep extending the copyright period for everybody. .
Children of Rhesus negative mothers and Rhesus positive fathers will be Rhesus positive and at risk of their mother developing antibodies to their blood (as as second child after the mother has been sensitised by the first child, or as the result of the mother being exposed to the child's blood). High risk of still birth or major problems for the child.
The gene for Rh- is recessive. Citation. I ended up having to explain this to my Mom--whose genotype here I actually do know, without any need to test it, because I know hers and my maternal grandfather's blood types.
Before Anti-D injections were available, it was generally fatal and the only way a later child would survive is if the father's genotype was Rh+/Rh-. This was the case with my maternal grandfather; his Rh type was known at birth..and I know the genotypes for all of his siblings. (If you're wondering: Rh+/Rh-, all but the first died of hemolytic disease of the newborn. The firstborn, a boy, opted to slide down a railing and land on spikes...)
the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account,
It has been taken into account. No additional changes to regulations to support the weight of solar panels. I guess you don't know about fire codes but your roof has to be able to support a fully geared up firefighter.
I guess you don't know, but building codes and laws are different depending on where you live.
Where I live? It's a major issue if you want rooftop solar installed, because some only are strong enough to support an adult if that person is very careful about where they step. If memory serves, you also still are generally warned against trying to stand on a solar panel.
California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Actually, it does, but I was assuming you were bright enough to not need to be told that you can increase availability by building more. Even if the additional supply is outside of the cities it can still relieve the stress, especially if you couple it with a quality mass transit system to let people travel reliably in from the resulting exurbs.
They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
No, rooftop solar on every house is not required for the basic habitability of our planet. One-size-fits-all solutions generated by the ruling elite are inherently and unavoidably bigoted against those who are not part of that group. It's better to say that the switch must be made, but not setting by fiat from on high the exact method and means, especially since it will pick whatever is most fashionable and/or has the best lobbyists--not their quality as an option for sustainability.
While it may be a few decades before we have a huge mass of solar panels needing to be properly disposed of--recycled, preferably, since some of the materials involved are toxic and/or damaging to the environment to obtain--we need to start getting the systems in place now. (Recent source on the issues here, though I'd argue it's optimistic to assume that you have the expected lifespan of the panels to get the recycling systems in place--we have that long to plan for large-scale, yes, but we need to have started the small-scale recycling efforts, even if it's just ways to store panels safely in the meantime.)
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
Nobody claimed they were free but dude, solar panels are cheap as hell now. I mean, have you even looked at the price per watt in recent years?
The cost of the solar panels themselves is only part of the issue--the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account, as well as the simple fact that California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing. They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
If they want something like this, it'd be better to offer money up front for new houses to have solar panels on the roof than flat-out assume anybody wanting to own a house or build their own has money to burn.
It's as if Silicon Valley created a time machine that takes workers back to the (lack of) labour laws in the USA in the mid 19th century. At least that's what I understand from the ideas espoused as "the gig economy."
Some of it actually is going back to when you could have a decent chance of surviving as an independent worker.
I'd set one of the basic tests as this: If the standard deal is I can list on their app that "I will frob your widgets for $20" and they deal with getting me paid for a cut of whatever my fee for frobbing widgets is, I'm a contractor. If they pay me $10 an hour for frobbing widgets on demand, I'm an employee even if I get to pick my hours.
It's easy to cry "Muh corporations!"
I have a better explanation. Nutropics is a dangerous quack scam patterned after similar quack scams that have plagued the public since recorded history.
But they aren't banning all the videos, only some. Why? Well, maybe because some pharmaceutical companies would like to get in on the scam with their patents for them.
Actually, YouTube only taking down a random portion of the offending channels is normal. There is no need for conspiracy theories; normal incompetence explains it just fine.
Seriously, it'll be news when YouTube manages to take down the worst offenders and only them, because it will mean that they've finally gotten their bots properly trained and monitored.
There are plenty of videos on youtube about psychics, ghosts, and ufo's, making claims not backed up by ANY kind of science. Youtube didn't remove those.
Those kinds of claims do not have the record of death and destruction that making (absurd) medical claims has. There might be some deaths that can be attributable to psychics (not counting psychic medicine), but...lots and lots of people have died because of snake oil peddling and quackery, sometimes quite horribly. (Link deals with Radithor, which was a patent medicine that was literally and openly radium-laced water, and the fate of a sports celebrity spokesperson had a three-bottle-a-day habit...)