I think his intentions are very clear and he very often speaks them. Where Trump is utterly full of shit is where he describes reality, as in migrant crime waves, how tariffs actually work, Haitian pet eating, etc. And most of it he couldn’t get before because there were process barriers in play. Much of that has been cleared both in the intervening years and as a direct result of the down ballot of this election.

You mean the wall that had multiple useless sections built with American taxpayers money and he absolutely would have continued with if not for the inherent logistics issues of physical reality and lack of competent enablers that aren’t blockers this time around?

Also, the 2016 administrator WAS catastrophic. The hyper consolidation of corporate actors, deregulation and defanging of admin agencies that effectively removed all culpability from corporate actors, and bureaucratic damage that has made recovery a steeple uphill battle all happened not just under his watching but as an explicit intent of his watch.

That the overwhelming majority of voters are not just uninformed, uncritical, and apathetic, but actually might be morons? I don’t know.

Biden and Harris both have been fairly active in supporting labor and trying to tackle corporate Greed. Harris regularly talked about anti-gouging laws as well as the other items mentioned already. Biden was the most pro-union president we’ve seen in decades, had a strong NLRB, and was responsible for appointing the most active and effective FTC head we’ve seen in ages.

There are many many issues with the democratic party, but holy shit, being less supportive of the working class than fucking Republicans is absolutely not one of them.

That the overwhelming majority of voters are not just uninformed, uncritical, and apathetic, but actually might be morons? I don’t know.

Biden and Harris both have been fairly active in supporting labor and trying to tackle corporate Greed. Harris regularly talked about anti-gouging laws as well as the other items mentioned already. Biden was the most pro-union president we’ve seen in decades, had a strong NLRB, and was responsible for appointing the most active and effective FTC head we’ve seen in ages.

There are many many issues with the democratic party, but holy shit, being less supportive of the working class than fucking Republicans is absolutely not one of them.

That the overwhelming majority of voters are not just uninformed, uncritical, and apathetic, but actually might be morons? I don’t know.

Biden and Harris both have been fairly active in supporting labor and trying to tackle corporate Greed. Harris regularly talked about anti-gouging laws as well as the other items mentioned already. Biden was the most pro-union president we’ve seen in decades, had a strong NLRB, and was responsible for appointing the most active and effective FTC head we’ve seen in ages.

There are many many issues with the democratic party, but holy shit, being less supportive of the working class than fucking Republicans is absolutely not one of them.

No. It is that Trump won with the support of over 70 million Americans. People are responsible for their choices. jfc

Everyone saying Trumps totals didn’t change, yes, but their composition absolutely did change. But even that is besides the point. Even if they staged exactly the same, that’s still really fucking problematic and its absurd to give these people cover for being shitasses.

Host Thanksgiving and only invite your mom.

??? It is literally impossible for any voter to not know the devil they chose. No, over 70 million voters actively chose to elect perhaps the most incompetent and transparently stupid president in history back into office, but with a well known and well documented playbook this time around on how literally entry metric of American life, from domestic policy to foreign policy, will be made worse to the sole benefit of big corporate actors and 1%ers. A whole bunch of others were too apathetic to be concerned by this.

Voters ultimately made their choice. A lot of folks are going to die as a result, but unfortunately it won’t be limited to just the idiots that actually chose this.

Moreover, because of the conservative-court lead overturning of chevron combined with bullshittery about standing, FDA, among all other agencies, have at best questionable power.

AI in health and medtech has been around and in the field for ages. However, two persistent challenges make roll out slow-- and they’re not going anywhere because of the stakes at hand.

The first is just straight regulatory. Regulators don’t have a very good or very consistent working framework to apply to to these technologies, but that’s in part due to how vast the field is in terms of application. The second is somewhat related to the first but really is also very market driven, and that is the issue of explainability of outputs. Regulators generally want it of course, but also customers (i.e., doctors) don’t just want predictions/detections, but want and need to understand why a model “thinks” what it does. Doing that in a way that does not itself require significant training in the data and computer science underlying the particular model and architecture is often pretty damned hard.

I think it’s an enormous oversimplification to say modern AI is just “fancy signal processing” unless all inference, including that done by humans, is also just signal processing. Modern AI applies rules it is given, explicitly or by virtue of complex pattern identification, to inputs to produce outputs according to those “given” rules. Now, what no current AI can really do is synthesize new rules uncoupled from the act of pattern matching. Effectively, a priori reasoning is still out of scope for the most part, but the reality is that that simply is not necessary for an enormous portion of the value proposition of “AI” to be realized.

Summary judgement is not a thing separate from a lawsuit. It’s literally a standard filling made in nearly every lawsuit (even if just as a hail mary). You referenced “beyond a reasonable doubt” earlier. This is also not the standard used in (US) civil cases–it’s typically a standard consisting of the preponderance of the evidence.

I’m also not sure what you mean by “court approved documentation.” Different jurisdictions approach contract law differently, but courts don’t “approve” most contracts–parties allege there was a binding and contractual agreement, present their evidence to the court, and a mix of judge and jury determines whether under the jurisdictions laws and enforceable agreement occurred and how it can be enforced (i.e., are the obligations severable, what damages, etc.).

There’s plenty you could do if no label was produced with a sufficiently high confidence. These are continuous systems, so the idea of “rerunning” the model isn’t that crazy, but you could pair that with an automatic decrease in speed to generate more frames, stop the whole vehicle (safely of course), divert path, and I’m sure plenty more an actual domain and subject matter expert might come up with–or a whole team of them. But while we’re on the topic, it’s not really right to even label these confidence intervals as such–they’re just output weighting associated with respective levels. We’ve sort of decided they vaguely match up to something kind of sort approximate to confidence values but they aren’t based on a ground truth like I’m understanding your comment to imply–they entirely derive out of the trained model weights and their confluence. Don’t really have anywhere to go with that thought beyond the observation itself.

Are you under the impression that I think Teslas approach to AI and computer vision is anything but fucking dumb? The person said a stupid and patently incorrect thing. I corrected them. Confidence values being literally baked into how most ML architectures work is unrelated to intentionally depriving your system of one of the most robust ccomputer vision signals we can come up with right now.

All probabilistic models output a confidence value, and it’s very common and basic practice to gate downstream processes around that value. This person just doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Though, that puts them on about the same footing as Elono when it comes to AI/ML.

I’ve worked on processing submissions for this project. Honestly, it probably ends up just costing them more to do this program, which is mostly just a paid PR activity. The overwhelming majority of submissions, and I mean like 99%, are either not prior art in the sense of patent law or were already retrieved by the law firm on the case.

Do you have actual examples? I’ve lived here (greater Boston area) for over 10 years now and, having grown up in and around WI, the level of racism here strikes me as virtually non-existent in comparison, and where you do see it (lots of systemic artifacts), there is a constant and loud pressure to address it.

I’m not saying that Boston doesn’t have issues with racism, at many levels and in many ways, but I hear people claim it’s exceptionally worse than elsewhere in the country and I’m just confused. Had family friends from Chicagoland suburbs try to convince me Chicago has less racism issues than Boston and I just can’t imagine what the fuck happened to their brains to think that.

My z flip is hands down my favorite phone I’ve ever owned and I didn’t get it expecting to like it much. I just needed a new phone and with Samsung’s recycling program, my old near-tablet sized phone made the switch like barely 100 bucks.

There are a lot of small advantages it provides that quickly add up to it being an overall superior experience. Now if only Bixby wasn’t the worst fucking thing ever.

Their non-profit status had nothing to do with the legality of their training data acquisition methods. Some of it was still legal and some of it was still illegal (torrenting a bunch of books off a piracy site).

Oh wow, this suit is shaping up to be silly. I didn’t realize it was filed in Japan, too. That makes the patent aspect even shakier. Japan has no discovery process like in the US, which is generally very necessary for many software-related patents as, assuming they have a strong likelihood of surviving challenge, they are typically drawn to processes that are completely obfuscated from the user and outside observes.

There is an era of patents from the late 90s through the early-mid-00s that were insanely vague and rarely stand up to scrutiny, but most are expiring at this point, if they haven’t already. Generally, though, patents are not granted on “concepts” but on implementations. That’s a sometimes ambiguous line, but that’s a fundamental principle of modern patents.