1. Someone so purely interested in the tech and not money they'd give up the wealth 2. Governments, specifically the ones that don't consider a few billion to be a lot 3. Someone who's dead

e.g. Pick a name that puts people on a false trail.

I think you seeing him as radical is more a reflection of how radically left you are.

And your opinion is just as worthy of being kept to yourself.

It's not that you're against shame you just don't want your bad behaviors shamed.

Better outcomes all around when the father is the only parent as opposed to when the mother is the only parent.

Sex has consequences like these people are seeing.

Consenting people can still make mistakes and ruin relationships where if they had exercised better judgment they wouldn't have had problems.

But the part where this woman cannot identify the father is definitely worth shaming.

Politics will exist for as long as there are people.

Any country not able to or interested in waging occasional war will be destroyed by countries that can and do.

Simple as that.

But please I'm interested in hearing any utopia arguments that claim we can/should deprecate war. And remember - you have to convince your country along with every other country.

Like how the gpt llms were kind of a side project at openai until someone showed how powerful they could be if you threw a lot more parameters at it.

There could be some other architecture in the works that makes gpts look old - first to build and train that new ai will be the winner.

There isn't some American principle that human = credit score. Americans just don't want their government ID required to do basic things.

See discord age verification controversy.

In the first world we have a ton of excess value so we can do things like homeless shelters, charity, socialized medicine, etc.

But if we suddenly don't have that excess value to spread around and it becomes either I eat today or you eat today and I'm the one who farmed the wheat and made the bread -- me and my family are going to eat today.

We go back to "fair" very fast.

> more likely to correctly identify black participants than participants from other ethnic groups.

> AI surveillance that is experimental, untested, inaccurate or potentially biased has no place on our streets.

I wonder if they're more worried about putting too many men in prison or too many black people.

See recent Amazon outages caused by vibe/slop/movefast coding practices with little review.

You conveniently brushed this under the rug of pair programming but of the handful of companies I've worked at, only one tried it and just as an experiment which in the end failed because no one really wanted to work that way.

I think this "don't review" attitude is dangerous and only acceptable for hobby projects.

If I eat perfectly clean for 90% of my diet and then I consume poison for the remaining 10%, that's still doing some damage.

You can, however, be happy with the fact that 10% is better than 50%.