SSN is about the worst identifier, but they have revamped the process to remove some of those issues. It should no longer be possible for people to be issued the same number, and they’re no longer sequential or assigned in geographic blocks.
Doesn’t change the existing ones, but going forward.
Oh, not inaccuracies. Just portions of the signal only available to the military. The original intent was to limit accuracy, and now it’s more to counter spoofing, but it’s still there, just upgraded.
It’s not even a secret. Almost all modern cars do as part of remote service packages. It’s what let’s you ask them to unlock your car, do remote start via a phone app, or let’s the police request a remote shutdown of a stolen car.
GPS. The system can be turned off in specific regions (no idea how, it’s classified, but they’ve actually done it so it’s not just a wild notion), and portions of the signal are already encrypted such that they’re only available to the US military. There would be little stopping them from sending altered signals or just turning it off.
Many missile systems, aircraft and fighting vehicles rely on GPS to function as expected.
And do you think that that prevents them from disclosing that they terminated an employee for unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory job performance?
Further, for government employees certain details about their jobs are simply considered matters of public record. It’s not something they divulge, it was simply never private in the first place.
It’s public information if a government employee is terminated, and there’s nothing stopping them from reaching out to the previous employer.
Sabatoge can carry extremely harsh legal penalties, particularly if it has any type of lasting impact. Beyond that, just phoning it in and doing a bad job can slow things down but doesn’t actually stop it. If you’re then let go it’s on their pace, it looks worse for you and it’s less noticeable.
A mass resignation can be the only thing some people can do. It sends a message, it gets noticed outside the organization, and it lets objective news reporting share your motivation, which would normally fall under opinion.
It also leaves a big gap in the organization that isn’t getting anything done.
It’s the AP. They’re a wire service, not editorial. Unless he says that that’s his objective it’s only speculation, and even then you can only report that he said it, not that it actually is.
Well, we’re discussing a lot of hypothetical things here.
I wasn’t referring to bees making games, but to bees making honey. It’s just something they do that we get value from without needing to persuade them. We exploit it and facilitate it but if we didn’t they would still make honey.
I don’t know that something has to be identical to humans to make fun games for us. I’ve regularly done fun and entertaining things for cats and dogs that I wouldn’t enjoy in the slightest.
If it’s less a question of comprehension or awareness as it is motivation. If we can make an AI feel motivated to do what we need, it doesn’t matter if it understands why it feels that motivation. There are humans who feel motivated to make games purely because they enjoy the process.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re talking about with the need for omniscient hardware and prison.
Eh, I really don’t agree that thinking about future rounds is even remotely like gambling.
It’s not the random chance that makes it gambling, it’s the wagering and possibility of a payoff.
No one would mistake vanilla solitaire for gambling even though it’s based on random factors and minimal strategy.
I think what you’re referring to as gambling tropes are more engagement tactics, which are often used by gambling apps but are fundamentally distinct.
In the case of an AI it could actually be plausible, like how bees make honey without our coercion.
It’s still exploitation to engineer a sentient being to enjoy your drudgery, but at least it’s not cruel.
Well, there’s certainly enough gold bars to cover that amount, gold is stupid expensive. You’re right about the rest though.
There’s about $290 billion in bullion in fort Knox, which is something like 4.5 metric tons.
Potentially. Since we don’t know how any of it works because it doesn’t exist, it’s entirely possible that intelligence requires sentience in order to be recognizable as what we would mean by “intelligence”.
If the AI considered the work trivial, or it could do it faster or more precisely than a human would also be reasons to desire one.
Alternatively, we could design them to just enjoy doing what we need. Knowing they were built to like a thing wouldn’t make them not like it. Food is tasty because to motivate me to get the energy I need to live, and knowing that doesn’t lessen my enjoyment.
I don’t know that I’d agree with the notion that games that are engaging need to be rated higher. Is there harm to playing one game a lot?
I’ve read books that were so engaging I kept reading long after I should have stopped for the night. The author very much intended for the book to be engaging and to hold my attention. Should we rate the book as more mature because I kept reading it?
I don’t think balatro is any more addictive than most other games, it just has a low barrier to starting and a quick turn around.
Ratings should be informative and harm based. “This game is full of violence” and “this game has gambling”. Factual.
A game being prone to being played alot isn’t factual, it’s just an observation that some people find it fun. Without an associated risk of harm you’re just putting a scary number on something because of your opinion about it.
Do you think I made this donation?
I replied to someone saying it was sad someone gave money to a murderer.
I don’t think it’s sad someone gave money to help someone they think might not be a murderer, and even if you think they are one, it’s not sad someone had the impulse to help push back against what they saw as a biased application of the Justice system.
I understand you think that’s misguided in this case. Do you understand how that’s kind of a nonsequitur?
Well, aside from the boring “routine expression of a spectrum of neurodivergent traits being better understood leading to increased ability to properly diagnose it, and increased awareness and support in the public education system allowing more teachers to see early indicators and advise medical consultation early so kids can get better support”.
They used to just call mildly autistic people geeks and best them with rulers. Now they let them wear headphones to reduce distractions if they need it.
Yeah, you’re not exactly sounding rational there buddy.
You think we should mistrust doctors who advise you take a preventative treatment that every healthcare system on earth recommends and has since the treatment was created because in one country the people who pay for medicine sometimes don’t want to pay for things the doctors recommend (and you’re saying don’t trust the doctors, mind you), even though the people who pay for it actually recommend it because they make more money if you don’t get sick.
Even in a full conspiratorial mindset your nonsense is disjointed.
Antivaxers are fucking idiots because they don’t have a coherent internal logic for their paranoid woo, they don’t have the ability to understand any of the research that’s happened, and they don’t want to trust the people who do because those people clearly want to hurt them and give them… A developmental disability. For profit somehow.
What does that have to do with anything?
Someone with resources gave money to aid the defense of someone they think is being treated unjustly after watching and seeing what they thought was mistreatment.
Are you just trying to aggravate people, or do you actually have a point?
They’re saying that they find due process to be lacking and the prosecution to be political.
Do you think it’s depressing that someone would donate money to the defense of someone they think is being inappropriately prosecuted?
If you think they’re guilty, you should still want them to get the best defense possible, so that when they’re found guilty it’s airtight. Our justice system is based on an adversarial model. If the prosecution, with the resources of the state, can’t successfully argue that they did it and that their arrest and all procedures were properly followed, do you really want that to still mean someone faces the death penalty?
In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can’t be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.
For politicians, I would default to “literally everything is protected free speech”, with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
“I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia” is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted.