It’s typically considered bad form to tell someone to Google your point for you instead of actually explaining your point yourself.
You’re clearly trying to convince people of something. Actually do that instead of telling people keywords that mean something to you.

They run a car into something that only crunches a corner. Simulates a tree, telephone pole, or guard rail collision.
Uneven force application is much harder to safely accommodate, and it’s also a more representative crash test, since more crashes happen in that manner than full width head-on collisions.

That’s pretty fair. I know the cameras can be more effective, particularly in situations where the driver may be using lane centering or something, but I’m not sure I could be fully comfortable regardless.

You’re literally quoting a part of a sentence to seemingly disagree with. Specifically a sentence that’s saying that you don’t need to believe it’s nefarious for it to be reasonable to want privacy and assurances of privacy.

They seemed on the fence about if they were being paranoid or if they were justified in feeling concerned and it was as bad as it seemed.
I’m saying it doesn’t matter what you believe their intentions are, it’s not paranoid to have concerns about the camera in your face. You can short circuit questions about the technology or their reputation and go directly to resolving that discomfort however is most suitable to you.

Yeah, I can see the safety benefits but I’m honestly not sure how I would feel about it. My current car has a variant but the camera is mounted on the outside, and it notices lane drift and changes in responsiveness to curves. It’s basically an extension of the collision/lane centering/automatic windshield wiper (weirdly) systems.

I’m okay with that because it’s not looking at me, but at the road, which I expect the car to do. Even if it was verified to not be sending anything anywhere I can honestly say I’m still very unsure about just being passively on camera like that.

Fatigue detection is a real thing that doesn’t use the type of AI that people think of when they hear that word today most often. It’s not language based but instead it’s able to recognize faces and posture, tell where your attention is focused, and recognize signs of fatigue like head drop, eyes closing, and attention drifting from the road.
It, along with other attention based driver safety features, are real and effective and can be done on device with a computer with less power than a modern cellphone.

It is, however, at least a little creepy. It’s made a lot more so by it not being disclosed upfront with disclosures and full user awareness. It should be explained by both the website, the car manual, the salesperson and the car itself exactly what it’s doing and where any video data is being sent. It’s probably processing the video locally and at most sending telemetry about which driver just sat down and such, but 1) you might not want that 2) unless they actually tell you that you don’t know.

It’s not paranoia to want an explanation and appropriate assurances, or for it to be in your control. You don’t need to assume it’s the worst case for that to be true. It’s probably a real safety feature with a couple of quality of life features taped on so people can see it do something, since you don’t really see a passive safety feature. But without actual communication you don’t actually know that.

I don’t think they’re arguing they need the large cut to develop features, I believe they’re arguing the large cut is reflective of the added value.

In a capitalist system there’s no transaction that can’t be traced back to some form of exploitation. Profit is someone making more money than they put in.

There’s no game marketplace that isn’t looking to exploit someone.
The question isn’t “is someone being exploited”, it’s “how severe is the exploitation” and “is the exploiter using unfair means to reduce choice”.

Because we don’t have a magic wand that lets us see the objective value of the services being offered we can only compare preferences and tolerable prices.

I believe their argument to be that the high margin taken by valve isn’t reflective of monopolistic market practices, but a reflection of the value added by their service, and that if you were to offer a lower rate that didn’t have the listed perks you would see developers showing a preference for the higher rate.

No, they don’t. You’re acting like all those benefits you listed are payment or compensation for the work they did. If those serve as compensation, they don’t create a forward obligation. The paycheck you get at work doesn’t entitle your employer to your continued labor.
The community isn’t owed shit for the guy giving them something useful that may have looked good on his resume. It’s entitled as fuck to think you’re owed something because someone built something you found valuable enough that someone else wanted to hire them.

To answer your questions:

• because it’s their project and they thought it was the right tool for the job. What answer were you expecting?
• because the community isn’t working on the project.
• probably not.

Seriously. Demanding someone give up control of their personal project because it’s too important for them to run as they see fit, but not important enough to support or help maintain.
Fork it and maintain it yourself. Literally nothing is stopping you. You’re just as equipped as he is, other than not being the inventor of the underlying technology.

It’s essentially highlighting the ambiguity the colors can convey. Because our eyes don’t see in isolation from our brains, we don’t see based on the actual reflected color, but based on the contrast between those colors and context clues. We essentially have white balance and color correction baked into our vision,which is part of why photos without that look weird. Lacking context you process the colors differently.

In this case people saw a blue and black dress and lacking visual context they either compensated for sunlight or the compensated for shade. The contrasts involved (black/white, blue/yellow) are because opposite compensations maintain contrast while changing brightness.

This image has someone wearing the dress photographed with the white balance specifically off so that you can maybe see what other people were implicitly correcting for.

I’m honestly not seeing two sides being shitty. I feel like I see people being shitty towards the developer and people being opposed to that.

Which commit was the slop that caused the issue?

It’s not like bugs didn’t happen before AI, so to be so confident it’s slop that caused the issue you surely know which commit caused the issue?

I’m incredulous about the direction of AI development tools, but this whole thing is turning into attacks on the guy and acting like bugs didn’t happen before AI.

No, you’re not understanding that there are other types of datacenters.

A datacenter is a building with a lot of computers. Not all of them are AI related, and in fact most aren’t.
Easily more than 90% of everything on the Internet and all telecommunications runs out of a datacenter.

The thing people are currently, rightly, being opposed to are hyper scale data centers. Those tend to be filled with things like AI training or massive web services where all the pieces need to be close to each other to work efficiently.

Most data centers are similar in size and environmental impact to a shipping warehouse, but with power consumption a fair bit higher.
Any midsize city will have at least a few, if for no other reason than to handle telecommunications, and many businesses will have their own small one near their offices.

Everything in a capitalist society serves profit to its owners. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve a good we want to have around. It’d certainly be better and more efficient if my local telecom hub or hospital were publicly owned and managed with a service motive above a profit motive, but they’re not and I’d rather have both than not.

What I don’t need is open AI building a datacenter 32 times larger than the hospital and 128 times larger the the telecom hub to train AI models, fuck up the water and double my power bill.

Oh, I never thought you were saying I did or didn’t have to like someone or something. And I would never advocate for hurting or mistreating any animal no matter how much of a bastard it is.

I think the disconnect might be exactly how “severe” the label is. There are humans who became cops because they legitimately thought they could do good, who never did anything unjust and never were in a position of ignoring wrong doing or anything like that.
The closest thing to a moral failing being a lack of awareness of systemic justice and so on and so forth.
They’re still a bastard because they’re contributing to the entire thing, regardless of their lack of involvement in the specific negatives.

I don’t think the dog needs punishment, just that it shouldn’t be a police dog.

I’d easily agree that a dog doesn’t have the same moral autonomy that a human does. I just don’t think you need that to be called a bastard. Geese are often bastards. You don’t hold it against the goose, but you don’t forget that if given the choice that goose will nip you.

Utterly aside from the specifics: there’s some research that indicates that canines do actually have capacity for a sense of morality and justice but it’s limited to equal treatment so far as we can see. Not the more abstract “right or wrong action”.

They can be victims and be bastards.
A police dog, put in a position to hurt you, will.
A police horse out in a position to hurt you will try not to.

Drug dogs were probably the worst example I could have chosen. A better example would have been a dog used to attack people. They may have been trained and treated with various degrees of mistreatment to do so quite so enthusiastically, but they know they’re hurting you.
The police horse uses what agency it has to try not to hurt you.

If someone forces you to drive a car through a crowd, you’re still morally culpable if you try to hit people. If you do your best to avoid hurting anyone within the confines of what you were forced to do you’re pretty much in the clear.

Considering the stakes of bastarddom are pretty low, I’m willing to judge an animal based on what it would do with its limited autonomy.

Police dogs are trained to rat you out, either legitimately or illegitimately.
Them being victims who weren’t given a choice doesn’t make them not active participants, just sympathetic ones.
Like modern pirates. They’re doing it because they need to feed their families and often have no real choice, but that doesn’t make it okay to hurt random fisherman and freighter crews.

Police horses will do their best to not step on you when forced to ride into a crowd. Not bastard.

no one will ever know it was you and the company is not allowed to tell others.

That’s absolutely not true. The generally accepted policy is to only confirm dates of employment, conduct, and if they would rehire. The can share anything that isn’t a lie.

Additionally, if you commit sabotage you can have charges pressed against you. Serious ones with possible prison time. That would show up with even a rudimentary record search.

Knowing how.

All routers are just Linux computers managing slightly better than average network cards. (Home routers, obviously. Beefy carrier hardware is different).

A basic setup is essentially installing Linux and then running a handful of commands for packet forwarding. The figuring out how to do it without wifi crashing will take longer because that software is wonky.

“build it at the gym and show it off in the kitchen”

The only way excercise significantly contributes to weight loss is by building more muscle mass, particularly lean muscle, that burns more calories at rest.
Since your resting metabolism is a bit more than half of the calories you burn in a day, making it larger adds a notable chunk to the “Out” side of “calories in < calories out”, in some cases making it so the out side is capable of being larger than the minimum a person needs to eat to be healthy.

By happy coincidence, it also makes it easier to excercise, makes you feel better and be healthier, and helps with awkward panting.

Your conclusion is correct, but your terminology is wrong.

What we call AI today is AI, because AI doesn’t mean “capable of thought”, consciousness, sapience or anything like that.
It’s capable of producing a coherent output adapted to observed circumstances. That’s roughly as far as the notion of intelligence goes, and it’s a very low bar. You don’t need a lot of intelligence to be intelligent.

The people who coined the term were interested in how you make computers react to their inputs dynamically instead of acting closer to what we might now think of as a saved macro.
“It’s intelligent because rather than comparing against a list of every known typo, it sees it’s not a word in its list, and then replaces it with the one requiring the fewest edits to reach. It learns by adding your corrections to the known word list.”

There will probably be a small logo, a mark, or, commonly, a depiction of a fly.

Pee on that.