Pup Biru

it says self cleaning though

i’m guessing more like these

they’re all over in australia and generally pretty good. i wouldn’t call them clean, but for requiring very little maintenance they’re fricken spotless

hell even just add NATO, EU, Canada, Mexico, and Panama to the list… prevent a problem for once

redacting information is a lot harder than that. you often have to redact things that allow people to draw correlations that lead to identity… details like that should be redacted

but this is ridiculous on its own, even without the enormous blunders that prove it’s about protecting co-conspirators rather than victims

fevers break if your immune system attacks and destroys the threat. if the infection wins, you die. if you’re immunocompromised and get a fever, it’s very very bad news

i’m not saying that the democrats are compromised and they’re the immune system in this analogy of course… no no no… im just commenting on the biology!

before i start i want to make sure that this should in no way be interpreted as a “both sides” argument: i think yall should choose the most likely to win, least bad candidate (ie defensive voting; as disgusting as it is) - which almost certainly means a democrat at this point

i think it’s important to remember that both republican and democrats are relatively symmetrical in a lot of regards (not all). there are likely a similar number of people who actively support the democrats (distinct from defensive voting) no matter what, and they’d likely be equally problematic fixing systemic issues

perhaps they’d be easier to persuade, but it’s really easy to think that people on “our side” are governed by logic alone, but study after study has said that both sides are susceptible to propaganda and other political tools to a similar degree

yup… i reread and realised i’d misread your comment and so deleted mine

both of these readings are valid:

(should become a victim of an act of aggression) or (an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used)

((should become a victim of an act of aggression) or (an object of a threat of aggression)) in which nuclear weapons are used

english is ambiguous in this case. don’t be dismissive of people for “reading comprehension” when it’s definitively ambiguous

it’s definitively ambiguous. you can’t say either way with only the english.

deleted by creator

absolutely… all the people praising this, like… those signs exist for traffic flow and safety… it’s so incredibly selfish to just say fuck everyone else, i need to turn right and even more selfish to avoid repercussions but making it “okay” for everyone else

maybe the sign was wrong, sure… but we don’t have that information… without more information, it’s an incredibly selfish act. dude has main character syndrome

hmmm that doesn’t really track imo: the amount of water that planes emit is negligible, and even if they do seed clouds they’re not actually creating significant cloud systems without the moisture in the atmosphere, which absolutely dwarfs anything that planes emit… remember the amount of moisture in the atmosphere is all the rain produced before aviation, and the amount of moisture in the atmosphere emitted by aviation is at most the difference between that rain and the rain since aviation (i’d wager it’s far less than 0.01%)

and seed clouds don’t actually create more clouds overall: they just move them from other locations. clouds are formed when humidity reaches a particular level at a particular layer of the atmosphere which exceeds the airs ability to hold onto it at that level, and the cloud stops forming when when it has reduced the humidity to the level to which it stays in the atmosphere

fight? in putins case i think you mean join

because entire laws aren’t meant to handle individual cases. making laws is slow and laborious, and is meant to cover the broad strokes

the real fix is to have a panel or something, similar to how you have judges etc now, and i’m sure there are other solutions

the fact that the currently implementation is rife with abuse - and only pretty recently at that - isn’t a reason the whole thing shouldn’t exist (which is what the thread was about)

because the world can’t be sorted into neat little boxes, and the law isn’t perfect. there are many things that are technically crimes that would be a moral imperative to ignore (eg whistleblowing, draft dodging for the vietnam war)

the law should be tempered. the system the US provides for that is police discretion, prosecutorial discretion, and pardon

perhaps the system should be different, but a mechanism to pardon people for crimes where society has moved on (selling weed, for example), or where a moral imperative to break the law exists (again, something like whistleblowers: chelsea manning was pardoned… or rather her sentence was commuted, which i believe is different but similar logical reasoning) is very important imo

you can’t simultaneously and logically hold these 2 things:

• lawmakers are idiots and the laws they make are broken and often moral
• the law is perfect and this should be applied without exception

drug crimes, for example… if the US govt decided selling weed is all of a sudden no longer a crime, that doesn’t automatically release people from prison

or if someone did something technically illegal, but the circumstance around it made it clearly the moral choice (perhaps something like whistleblowers)

the world is messy and no law perfectly covers all bases… pardons are the same as prosecutorial or police discretion. in an ideal world, the harshness of the law should be tempered by morality of the individuals at many levels

of course that falls apart when the morality at every level is non existent, but that is legitimate purpose/reason. imo the discussion shouldn’t be about the overall legitimacy of the powers themselves, but in the trade-offs and lack of real protections from abuse, or who gets to have a say in those things

that’s absolutely true, and i’m sure that as tooling and workflow gets better these solutions will become standard. for the moment it’s all pretty haphazard, and i just don’t think it’s necessarily malicious intent or lying exactly… i think it could have easily been just miscommunication and/or legitimate mistake

afaik there were 2 issues here: there was a placeholder asset left in the game upon release, and the rules of the award were no AI assets during development either. i think the first can be easily explained by it being accidental (they replaced the texture very quickly) and the second can easily be explained by miscommunication between teams

i can see how this would happen though: marketing team simplistically asks about AI assets, dev team says no because it’s not in the final product that they’re aware of, and that miscommunication is exactly that: neither team is trying to be dishonest, it’s just that some information got lost along the way

their award should have been rescinded for sure

but also that shouldn’t tarnish the reputation of the studio going forward as long as they apologise and it was legitimately internal miscommunication rather than an attempt to deceive

yeah i don’t even think the dishonesty was necessarily dishonesty… i just think perhaps the marketing team wasn’t fully informed. i can absolutely see dev teams saying no to “AI use” not having been told that the question applied to the whole dev process, and marketing not understanding that that information was important

i have no problem with AI placeholders. i think that’s the right way to use AI… and dishonesty is a problem… miscommunication is really not a problem

but i also think that rescinding the award is the right call! but that shouldn’t tarnish the studios reputation in the future if they apologise and explain what happened

i’d insert

• see what rule 2 is
• wonder why that applies

also economies of scale… industrial farming is well optimised for cheap and heavy; nothing else… when you add more things like flavour, you’re always going to sacrifice price or quantity