One thing the summary didn't point out was that game three they didn't let the AI choose their own heroes. The humans basically conceded defeat; so for the third game they were just experimenting: The let the "audience" choose the heroes, and they chose heroes specifically which would be poor at playing the style which the computers had played so far, just to see if it could change its playing style to adapt to the new heroes. And the human team chose exactly the heroes that the AI chose for the first two games. After that draft, the AI's rating of its own chance of winning was 2.3%, based only on the draft. The AI adapted somewhat, but not much; and near the end of the game, the AI seemed to be doing a bunch of fairly sub-optimal things; like, it knew it couldn't really win, so it didn't know what to do except random micro.
So, it was an interesting data point -- particularly the importance of choosing the right set of heroes. But it was certainly not a victory for humans. The AI soundly trounced them except when it was purposely crippled.
Matches, post-game commentary, and other information available on the OpenAI Blog about the match.
Sounds like a classic case of not all heroes being equal (ie some are OP / some are too nerfed) if the odds were that obvious after only character selection.
Actually, your carbon impact and resource impact has much much more to do with where you live, where you work, and where your energy comes from.
If you live and work within 1-2 miles and rarely drive or fly long distances (high speed rail has minimal impact), and live in an efficient city like Seattle which has 98.5 percent green energy (same holds for Vancouver BC or Nelson BC or, surprisingly, even Calgary AB or much of Texas), you have very very little resource impact on the world.
If your electric car uses solar panels on your home and at work, and the battery helps load balance the grid so it has a higher level of renewables, your impact is very small.
If you're a millenial, you may not own a suburban house or have a lawn or even a fireplace and you may not own a car and tend to walk, bike, or use transit. If you eat low on the food chain, especially if you eat mussels and clams and shellfish grown in mixed kelp or seagrass beds, you're actually carbon negative on food.
If you use native shrubberies and water that would have gone to waste to water them, especially using no fertilizers or composting your food waste, then your impact is very small. If you reuse things, use less packaging (or use it to replace other purchases, such as cardboard instead of pizza trays), and recycle what can be recycled after, then you have very little impact.
On average, a modern city dwelling Millenial on the coasts (except the South, but including Texas) has about 1/10th the impact that the average American does.
That's science. Use the online calculators to see where you use things.
Plus I bet the Prius you drive only emits smug... not unlike your post.
Until the solution is large numbers of humans dying off. Yeah the Earth itself will balance, but there are more ways than one to decrease demand.
Just like there are more ways to increase supply. If we approach global warming, food production, or any other doomsday issue as a challenge to be solved then we will solve it. If we wring our hands and say oh no the only option is millions die then we won't. Populations in many countries are falling without calamities like mass starvation. Get the third world some birth control and the issue is all but solved in a generation.
Biased news is not inherently "fake news". All news has some level of inherent bias just from the level of deciding what is "newsworthy" and what isn't. And that's before adding any editorial spin on the facts. You just have to recognize that bias and account for it.
For example I get a lot of my foreign news from al-Jazeera, and I realize a lot of their content will have a pro-Qatar and pro-Palestine slant. There will always be inaccuracies as well, it's the nature of information-you always get more with time. "Fake news" is taking objective facts and claiming the opposite, not transparently correcting factual inaccuracies in reporting once they become known, or even just making shit up. "Fake news" has gone from the meaning "false news" to "news I don't like".
Deliberately cherry picking stats from legal immigrants, who are largely positive, and applying those to illegal immigrants, who are largely negative, is more than editorial bias. It's deliberately being misleading, which is certainly a flavor of lying, and is in fact what I'd call fake news. Here is an example:
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/...
The straw man they create is illegal immigrants pay no taxes. The actual issue many taxpayers have , myself included, is that illegal immigrants take out more than they put in. The article goes on to say that illegals pay $23.6 billion in taxes. They make it sound like a big plus, as if it helps. Left out is that they cost $134.9 billion, which means that the net cost is still >$100 billion in the red. This is far more than editorial bias, it's only pushing half the story with key facts unmentioned. The key fact of the costs are common sense, this isn't asking too much or a level of detail that is above average. The Vox article is what I'd call fake news. All it has is a straw man in the beginning followed by Enron style math where all liabilities are ignored.
My point here is why are we loaning money for useless degrees? We have more "gender studies" and law degrees than we need right now and not enough STEM graduates, yet we loan money for all of these using the same rules and rates....
To be fair the "need" for gender studies is exactly zero. They exist only to cause friction and discord, nothing useful could be expected from them. The exact same statement could be said of lawyers but they seem to be more in the necessary evil while gender studies are just evil with no upside.
When I was in school. The right wing in America said it would be fine and the kids would just take responsibility and work their way through college like they did (ignoring that they all had higher wages adjusted for inflation and 1/5th the tuition). What drives me nuts is we all knew this was coming and just said fuck it. And all we got for it was some paltry tax cuts that expire.
I have not seen a serious solution from either the right nor left wing. The problem is that college costs are going up far faster than anything else (double digit inflation most years). That's the problem. This problem is not addressed by having the government pay for it, indeed that will probably make it worse as medical costs show. The problem is not solved by 529 plans either. The problem is solved by figuring out why college costs are escalating so quickly and clamping down on it. I have not heard much talk about that from either the right or the left.
Ironically the modern tools used these days to fix cars, raise crops and cook food are all based on technologies invented by academics of the past. Without us, the world would still be living in the dark ages. And as our society continues to move away from intellectual honesty ("feels > reals") and secular democracy, every day people's lives will continue to get shorter and more brutal while the wealthy elite grab more and more power. I find it amusing that the tide of anti-intellectualism seems to have taken its strongest hold in online tech-oriented communities like Slashdot. You are the direct beneficiaries of thousands of years of intellectual development and you are throwing it away for what?
Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Colleges are so full of the lazy and entitled today that there's a reason people despise them. Safe spaces are not the products of the intellectually strong and anyone with more than 2 brain cells knows it.
You joke, but maybe it will help pop the tuition bubble. State school tuition is something like 30x what it was when I was young - it's insane. The more money the government threw at the problem, the more universities raised tuition to vacuum up all that financial aid plus all the money they can from their students' families.
Like all bubbles popping, it's going to suck for a while. But university tuitions need to revert to something affordable when working part time, and that will never happen as long as the government funnels money though (some) students to the universities.
Colleges are the worst of excess for the staff. Massive pay, working less than 20 hours a week, full retirements, and sabbaticals every so often. If only we all had it so easy. There's a reason college is never confused with the "real world".
I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news
To be fair I think that there's a lot of examples of inaccurate news from "regular" news outlets. I've lost count of how many many news articles conflate illegal immigrant with legal immigrant for example. These biases cause "regular" news to get dubbed fake news, and the label really has been earned in many cases.
Every site has some axe to grind is my observation.
I live in Southern California, it's most definitely >10% in some areas. In general there are 43.7 million immigrants in the US right now, >10% though not all illegal. It's tougher to get accurate numbers on anchor babies but it's estimated at ~8.4% of the adult population, and far higher among minors at ~20%. So yes, when you look at illegals and the anchor babies you do get >10%. Much higher in some areas. I'm not mad alas, our immigration system is. And until this mess is fixed you can forget UBI.
others _must_ work and have their money taken without any kind of compensation or benefit.
That's an unpreventable cost of maintaining a civilization. Either pay these people not to go out and commit crimes, or pay police to clean up after. I much prefer the former myself, because it results in the least deaths and violence and is probably cheaper.
You seem bright enough to know though that mass immigration takes math that is already iffy and makes it impossible. We have >10% of our population that is illegal and a great many more anchor babies to boot. If you really want to make this work step 1 is getting serious about policing who is here.
A real UBI system (and nearly every time we see those in power talking one it is NOT, it is just another benefit for people who 'need' it) is very different from that.
It is a reward for being part of a system, that is not dependent on your position in the system.
And, almost as importantly, it REPLACES most of the other parts.
It replaces benefit for unemployment, sickness (but not necessarily medical), old age, education, and many many more, thus removing the HUGE beuraucracy that is wrapped around operating and policing those.
UBI is completely incompatible with mass immigration. The people generally prefer to take care of their own but business wants cheap labor and Democrats need more voters so we end up with mass immigration. Thus UBI will never happen shy of a major reshuffling of priorities.
Why do those in power hate it?
See above.
With regards to the original question, I'd favor a guaranteed job over UBI. I've seen people who get money for free and it rots their brain and saps their initiative. At least social security has to be earned, UBI is paying people to breathe.
You're wasting your time arguing with idiots. How do you know an idiot? Look for those who jump to an -ism, especially racism, as the cause of something bad. Indeed those idiots are arguing that math itself is racist. They will never be satisfied and cannot be reasoned with as logic is also racist being a form of math.
"Wages have not risen as much as expected" is not at all the same as "the standard of living has not risen".
Improved capabilities and lowered costs for computers, personal electronics, and telecommunications features are huge examples of increases in the standard of living.
So how is life working for the Feds and finding ever new ways to try and convince the people that they are really getting ahead when it's obvious that they aren't? Hey cars, housing, and college costs doubled but congratulations - you get a larger TV at a lower price. That's surely a fair trade right?
In the 1970s, there was NO amount of money that could get you a smartphone.
I guess for some that would be a deal breaker. If you have much of a *real life* in the *real world* you will be fine.
The richest people in the world died of diseases you don't seriously think about.
Like heart disease and cancer? Those are still the main killers. Medical advances have been huge in diagnostics and limited elsewhere.
You travel faster, safer, and cheaper than the anyone in those days did.
Congratulations, you finally scored a point. You are correct that safety has improved.
Your entertainment options - TV, video games, movies, radio, plays and performances - were all more limited and more expensive.
Back to the question of where do you spend your time? In the real world doing real things or like a vidiot.
Violence was MUCH higher than today - New York's murder rate during those decades was 5-8 times higher than today. General crime was 50%-100% higher in most places.
It was higher then lower and now it's rising again. Hard to say where this one lands. Plus the violence has shifted. Bullying seems to be a bigger problem now for example.
Racial violence was common, and discrimination still widely practiced.
Some things never change, though now we have more discrimination against whites and Asians, I guess you call that progress.
There are very, very few ways that the modern era is worse than the 1970s or 1980s. The ability of the ignorant and stupid to speak out may be one of them.
If anything the modern world allows the ignorant to speak out far more, another loss for your position. Overall neither is better in all categories but when you look at the situation overall I'd take the 70s in a heartbeat.
Thing is, all this shit changed in the 70s. It's not a recent change. And yet our standard of living went up very nicely from the 70s through around 2000. It's not obvious what changed, though political corruption has been getting worse since the 90s. Perhaps it passed some tipping point: the Bush/Obama bank "bailout" was the single largest looting of the treasury in US history, perhaps worse than all previous corruption combined. But that was many years after the change in ~2000.
The standard of living did not go up from the 70s-2000s. As the previous poster noted productivity went up but wages didn't. I'd *love* to go back in time and work in the 70s or 80s. I'd be making a lot more and housing would be far cheaper.
So, then, money is all that matters in any societal-level discussion? That's really sad if that's what you think.
I think it's about local populations making decisions for themselves. If they want a library then they can keep it. If they decide it isn't needed they can close it. My only point about money is that they, the local population, are paying for it so they, same local population, can decide what to do. It's not right that others dictate from afar how local affairs are done other than extreme basics. I like the library concept and have no problem with my tax dollars going that way - but I don't consider libraries basic human rights and won't begrudge $CITY that decides to close their library.
I know it's trendy for half the country to force their views on the other half but this is a local decision. If the local population wants to close the libraries that's their choice since they are the ones paying for them.
...note that CAPTCHAS have evolved over the years with several rounds of implementation. The original implementation ("enter the letters shown") can now be cracked by programs at the human level - so much so that making it more difficult than the algorithms can handle makes it more difficult than *humans* can handle.
The proposed law will only lead to more false-positive banning of real humans, which can be a) tuned to a political ideology, and b) for the human to give up privacy to regain their account. ("Send us a copy of your ID and we'll reinstate your account", or "Send us your phone number and we'll make you more secure.")
California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.
If certain populations aren't bright enough to use ID to vote I can only imagine how many a CAPTCHA would filter out. But this being California as long as illegals are fine with it then it's OK.
Perhaps... but, I'm not sure what they gain announcing these technologies- unless it's to set our researchers in a tizzy.
If you really have technology to detect stealth planes on radar- why let the world know that- you've just lost your ace in the hole.
This being China they will convince us they have it, we develop it, then they copy it. That will get them what they want in the longer run and for much cheaper.
why do people always argue that illegal immigrants pay taxes. They do not. They have no SSN, no tax ID. they do not pay taxes. period.
For the same reason they conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants - because they are willing to lie since they think the ends justifies the means. I've never heard a person be honest and clear about the numbers when they are advocating for mass illegal immigration. They grossly under estimate the amnesty numbers to make them more palatable, add in the taxes paid but not the costs to welfare and other government programs to make it seem like a win when in fact it's a huge loss, conflate legal immigrant crime statistics with illegal immigrant crimes to make it look lower. The number of lies illegal immigrant supporters use is amazing.
For example class sizes were increased so their citizens children's education suffered.
Class sizes will always be increasing. They have been increasing for many years, even in places where illegal immigration is essentially a non-issue. The same thing holds true for traffic and housing. None of that is relevant.
I am sympathetic to illegal immigrants who have improved themselves, their families, and their communities after their arrivals.
Don't forget the entire reason for my posting: to rebut the notion that all illegal immigration can be properly handled by simplistic reasoning. It's rarely simple.
I think you're deliberately ignoring the impact of a few million extra people on traffic, schools, and such. We're literally talking millions of people. It is extremely relevant. Cavalierly waving it away as 'not relevant' is precisely why Trump won in 2016.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing the summary didn't point out was that game three they didn't let the AI choose their own heroes. The humans basically conceded defeat; so for the third game they were just experimenting: The let the "audience" choose the heroes, and they chose heroes specifically which would be poor at playing the style which the computers had played so far, just to see if it could change its playing style to adapt to the new heroes. And the human team chose exactly the heroes that the AI chose for the first two games. After that draft, the AI's rating of its own chance of winning was 2.3%, based only on the draft. The AI adapted somewhat, but not much; and near the end of the game, the AI seemed to be doing a bunch of fairly sub-optimal things; like, it knew it couldn't really win, so it didn't know what to do except random micro.
So, it was an interesting data point -- particularly the importance of choosing the right set of heroes. But it was certainly not a victory for humans. The AI soundly trounced them except when it was purposely crippled.
Matches, post-game commentary, and other information available on the OpenAI Blog about the match.
Sounds like a classic case of not all heroes being equal (ie some are OP / some are too nerfed) if the odds were that obvious after only character selection.
Actually, your carbon impact and resource impact has much much more to do with where you live, where you work, and where your energy comes from.
If you live and work within 1-2 miles and rarely drive or fly long distances (high speed rail has minimal impact), and live in an efficient city like Seattle which has 98.5 percent green energy (same holds for Vancouver BC or Nelson BC or, surprisingly, even Calgary AB or much of Texas), you have very very little resource impact on the world.
If your electric car uses solar panels on your home and at work, and the battery helps load balance the grid so it has a higher level of renewables, your impact is very small.
If you're a millenial, you may not own a suburban house or have a lawn or even a fireplace and you may not own a car and tend to walk, bike, or use transit. If you eat low on the food chain, especially if you eat mussels and clams and shellfish grown in mixed kelp or seagrass beds, you're actually carbon negative on food.
If you use native shrubberies and water that would have gone to waste to water them, especially using no fertilizers or composting your food waste, then your impact is very small. If you reuse things, use less packaging (or use it to replace other purchases, such as cardboard instead of pizza trays), and recycle what can be recycled after, then you have very little impact.
On average, a modern city dwelling Millenial on the coasts (except the South, but including Texas) has about 1/10th the impact that the average American does.
That's science. Use the online calculators to see where you use things.
Plus I bet the Prius you drive only emits smug ... not unlike your post.
Until the solution is large numbers of humans dying off. Yeah the Earth itself will balance, but there are more ways than one to decrease demand.
Just like there are more ways to increase supply. If we approach global warming, food production, or any other doomsday issue as a challenge to be solved then we will solve it. If we wring our hands and say oh no the only option is millions die then we won't. Populations in many countries are falling without calamities like mass starvation. Get the third world some birth control and the issue is all but solved in a generation.
Biased news is not inherently "fake news". All news has some level of inherent bias just from the level of deciding what is "newsworthy" and what isn't. And that's before adding any editorial spin on the facts. You just have to recognize that bias and account for it. For example I get a lot of my foreign news from al-Jazeera, and I realize a lot of their content will have a pro-Qatar and pro-Palestine slant. There will always be inaccuracies as well, it's the nature of information-you always get more with time. "Fake news" is taking objective facts and claiming the opposite, not transparently correcting factual inaccuracies in reporting once they become known, or even just making shit up. "Fake news" has gone from the meaning "false news" to "news I don't like".
Deliberately cherry picking stats from legal immigrants, who are largely positive, and applying those to illegal immigrants, who are largely negative, is more than editorial bias. It's deliberately being misleading, which is certainly a flavor of lying, and is in fact what I'd call fake news. Here is an example: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/... The straw man they create is illegal immigrants pay no taxes. The actual issue many taxpayers have , myself included, is that illegal immigrants take out more than they put in. The article goes on to say that illegals pay $23.6 billion in taxes. They make it sound like a big plus, as if it helps. Left out is that they cost $134.9 billion, which means that the net cost is still >$100 billion in the red. This is far more than editorial bias, it's only pushing half the story with key facts unmentioned. The key fact of the costs are common sense, this isn't asking too much or a level of detail that is above average. The Vox article is what I'd call fake news. All it has is a straw man in the beginning followed by Enron style math where all liabilities are ignored.
My point here is why are we loaning money for useless degrees? We have more "gender studies" and law degrees than we need right now and not enough STEM graduates, yet we loan money for all of these using the same rules and rates. ...
To be fair the "need" for gender studies is exactly zero. They exist only to cause friction and discord, nothing useful could be expected from them. The exact same statement could be said of lawyers but they seem to be more in the necessary evil while gender studies are just evil with no upside.
When I was in school. The right wing in America said it would be fine and the kids would just take responsibility and work their way through college like they did (ignoring that they all had higher wages adjusted for inflation and 1/5th the tuition). What drives me nuts is we all knew this was coming and just said fuck it. And all we got for it was some paltry tax cuts that expire.
I have not seen a serious solution from either the right nor left wing. The problem is that college costs are going up far faster than anything else (double digit inflation most years). That's the problem. This problem is not addressed by having the government pay for it, indeed that will probably make it worse as medical costs show. The problem is not solved by 529 plans either. The problem is solved by figuring out why college costs are escalating so quickly and clamping down on it. I have not heard much talk about that from either the right or the left.
Ironically the modern tools used these days to fix cars, raise crops and cook food are all based on technologies invented by academics of the past. Without us, the world would still be living in the dark ages. And as our society continues to move away from intellectual honesty ("feels > reals") and secular democracy, every day people's lives will continue to get shorter and more brutal while the wealthy elite grab more and more power. I find it amusing that the tide of anti-intellectualism seems to have taken its strongest hold in online tech-oriented communities like Slashdot. You are the direct beneficiaries of thousands of years of intellectual development and you are throwing it away for what?
Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Colleges are so full of the lazy and entitled today that there's a reason people despise them. Safe spaces are not the products of the intellectually strong and anyone with more than 2 brain cells knows it.
maybe it will solve the obesity issue
You joke, but maybe it will help pop the tuition bubble. State school tuition is something like 30x what it was when I was young - it's insane. The more money the government threw at the problem, the more universities raised tuition to vacuum up all that financial aid plus all the money they can from their students' families.
Like all bubbles popping, it's going to suck for a while. But university tuitions need to revert to something affordable when working part time, and that will never happen as long as the government funnels money though (some) students to the universities.
Colleges are the worst of excess for the staff. Massive pay, working less than 20 hours a week, full retirements, and sabbaticals every so often. If only we all had it so easy. There's a reason college is never confused with the "real world".
I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news
To be fair I think that there's a lot of examples of inaccurate news from "regular" news outlets. I've lost count of how many many news articles conflate illegal immigrant with legal immigrant for example. These biases cause "regular" news to get dubbed fake news, and the label really has been earned in many cases. Every site has some axe to grind is my observation.
Citations:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... google answer using search: total immigrant population https://www.fairus.org/issue/s...
others _must_ work and have their money taken without any kind of compensation or benefit.
That's an unpreventable cost of maintaining a civilization. Either pay these people not to go out and commit crimes, or pay police to clean up after. I much prefer the former myself, because it results in the least deaths and violence and is probably cheaper.
You seem bright enough to know though that mass immigration takes math that is already iffy and makes it impossible. We have >10% of our population that is illegal and a great many more anchor babies to boot. If you really want to make this work step 1 is getting serious about policing who is here.
A real UBI system (and nearly every time we see those in power talking one it is NOT, it is just another benefit for people who 'need' it) is very different from that. It is a reward for being part of a system, that is not dependent on your position in the system. And, almost as importantly, it REPLACES most of the other parts. It replaces benefit for unemployment, sickness (but not necessarily medical), old age, education, and many many more, thus removing the HUGE beuraucracy that is wrapped around operating and policing those.
UBI is completely incompatible with mass immigration. The people generally prefer to take care of their own but business wants cheap labor and Democrats need more voters so we end up with mass immigration. Thus UBI will never happen shy of a major reshuffling of priorities.
Why do those in power hate it?
See above. With regards to the original question, I'd favor a guaranteed job over UBI. I've seen people who get money for free and it rots their brain and saps their initiative. At least social security has to be earned, UBI is paying people to breathe.
has stopped exactly ZERO terrorist attacks
It's harder to tell how many it discouraged...
Just like it's hard to say how many it encouraged to do a terrorist attack. I'm certain that some people after being molested have thought about it.
Citation:
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
This is rubbish.There are plenty of democracies in Western Europe, and none of them are closer to tyranny than the USA.
Tell that to Tommy Robinson who was secretly jailed for protesting outside a courthouse.
Citation
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"Wages have not risen as much as expected" is not at all the same as "the standard of living has not risen". Improved capabilities and lowered costs for computers, personal electronics, and telecommunications features are huge examples of increases in the standard of living.
So how is life working for the Feds and finding ever new ways to try and convince the people that they are really getting ahead when it's obvious that they aren't? Hey cars, housing, and college costs doubled but congratulations - you get a larger TV at a lower price. That's surely a fair trade right?
In the 1970s, there was NO amount of money that could get you a smartphone.
I guess for some that would be a deal breaker. If you have much of a *real life* in the *real world* you will be fine.
The richest people in the world died of diseases you don't seriously think about.
Like heart disease and cancer? Those are still the main killers. Medical advances have been huge in diagnostics and limited elsewhere.
You travel faster, safer, and cheaper than the anyone in those days did.
Congratulations, you finally scored a point. You are correct that safety has improved.
Your entertainment options - TV, video games, movies, radio, plays and performances - were all more limited and more expensive.
Back to the question of where do you spend your time? In the real world doing real things or like a vidiot.
Violence was MUCH higher than today - New York's murder rate during those decades was 5-8 times higher than today. General crime was 50%-100% higher in most places.
It was higher then lower and now it's rising again. Hard to say where this one lands. Plus the violence has shifted. Bullying seems to be a bigger problem now for example.
Racial violence was common, and discrimination still widely practiced.
Some things never change, though now we have more discrimination against whites and Asians, I guess you call that progress.
There are very, very few ways that the modern era is worse than the 1970s or 1980s. The ability of the ignorant and stupid to speak out may be one of them.
If anything the modern world allows the ignorant to speak out far more, another loss for your position. Overall neither is better in all categories but when you look at the situation overall I'd take the 70s in a heartbeat.
Thing is, all this shit changed in the 70s. It's not a recent change. And yet our standard of living went up very nicely from the 70s through around 2000. It's not obvious what changed, though political corruption has been getting worse since the 90s. Perhaps it passed some tipping point: the Bush/Obama bank "bailout" was the single largest looting of the treasury in US history, perhaps worse than all previous corruption combined. But that was many years after the change in ~2000.
The standard of living did not go up from the 70s-2000s. As the previous poster noted productivity went up but wages didn't. I'd *love* to go back in time and work in the 70s or 80s. I'd be making a lot more and housing would be far cheaper.
So, then, money is all that matters in any societal-level discussion? That's really sad if that's what you think.
I think it's about local populations making decisions for themselves. If they want a library then they can keep it. If they decide it isn't needed they can close it. My only point about money is that they, the local population, are paying for it so they, same local population, can decide what to do. It's not right that others dictate from afar how local affairs are done other than extreme basics. I like the library concept and have no problem with my tax dollars going that way - but I don't consider libraries basic human rights and won't begrudge $CITY that decides to close their library.
I know it's trendy for half the country to force their views on the other half but this is a local decision. If the local population wants to close the libraries that's their choice since they are the ones paying for them.
CNN is leading the fight in this; their site is super slow in all the major browsers.
Since the only thing worse than fake news is ... slow fake news
...note that CAPTCHAS have evolved over the years with several rounds of implementation. The original implementation ("enter the letters shown") can now be cracked by programs at the human level - so much so that making it more difficult than the algorithms can handle makes it more difficult than *humans* can handle.
The proposed law will only lead to more false-positive banning of real humans, which can be a) tuned to a political ideology, and b) for the human to give up privacy to regain their account. ("Send us a copy of your ID and we'll reinstate your account", or "Send us your phone number and we'll make you more secure.")
California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.
If certain populations aren't bright enough to use ID to vote I can only imagine how many a CAPTCHA would filter out. But this being California as long as illegals are fine with it then it's OK.
Perhaps... but, I'm not sure what they gain announcing these technologies- unless it's to set our researchers in a tizzy.
If you really have technology to detect stealth planes on radar- why let the world know that- you've just lost your ace in the hole.
This being China they will convince us they have it, we develop it, then they copy it. That will get them what they want in the longer run and for much cheaper.
4) The parents have been paying their taxes,
why do people always argue that illegal immigrants pay taxes. They do not. They have no SSN, no tax ID. they do not pay taxes. period.
For the same reason they conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants - because they are willing to lie since they think the ends justifies the means. I've never heard a person be honest and clear about the numbers when they are advocating for mass illegal immigration. They grossly under estimate the amnesty numbers to make them more palatable, add in the taxes paid but not the costs to welfare and other government programs to make it seem like a win when in fact it's a huge loss, conflate legal immigrant crime statistics with illegal immigrant crimes to make it look lower. The number of lies illegal immigrant supporters use is amazing.
For example class sizes were increased so their citizens children's education suffered.
Class sizes will always be increasing. They have been increasing for many years, even in places where illegal immigration is essentially a non-issue. The same thing holds true for traffic and housing. None of that is relevant.
I am sympathetic to illegal immigrants who have improved themselves, their families, and their communities after their arrivals.
Don't forget the entire reason for my posting: to rebut the notion that all illegal immigration can be properly handled by simplistic reasoning. It's rarely simple.
I think you're deliberately ignoring the impact of a few million extra people on traffic, schools, and such. We're literally talking millions of people. It is extremely relevant. Cavalierly waving it away as 'not relevant' is precisely why Trump won in 2016.
Lol. Just because you can't speak another language, doesn't mean rest of us Americans don't speak. Please keep your bigotry to yourself.
It's common sense to have the nation speak a common language, not bigotry. Please keep your name calling to yourself.