the city is sending crews to remove them.
The city seems to be overreacting. It's just a crosswalk, there's no reason to remove the families who painted them. Sheesh
Say it with me, now: chatgpt is not a doctor.
Now, louder for the morons in the back. Altman! Are you listening?!
Counterpoint:
In 3.5 years, Notepad.exe has gone from “perfect text-only editor” to “ai-laden spyware/malware”
Answer: Microsoft bought it.
There ya go...
Ok, good. I thought I was the only one who saw this connection. It's not that the police are against facial recog or that they don't want the NFL or anyone else to use it, it's that they're aware of the privacy degradation it causes, and don't want themselves (the police workers of the event) subjected to it. It's fine if we, the attendees, are subjected to it, just not them. Oh, what a world.
My only gripe with signal, is the use of phone numbers as usernames. Not everyone with whom I want to communicate via signal has a phone number. I understand why they went this route, but wish there was an alternative way.
Stop threatening, and just cancel already.
What happened to the vigor of society's cancel culture? Why are we not canceling corporate abuse like this? Or Microsoft's? Or Google's? Or Amazon's? Did we forget about cancel culture? Or are we just fine with being pawns in their dystopian capitalist games? Cancel culture had the potential to make real change, and we allowed corporations to cancel cancel culture for their capital gains.
That's not true. Try also destroyed really good things, like the internet as a whole.
"I’m hoping you’re going to put a line in your story about how cost-efficient I am,” he continued. “This is below minimum wage. No bathroom breaks, no meal breaks. This is a good investment, so please make sure that’s added to the story, okay?” [the mayor said]
The mayor was enthusiastic about the cost-effectiveness of the robot. “I want you guys to be extremely creative in your writing style to say ‘Eric, job well done,’” he told reporters.
This guy is special, isn't he...
The whole article basically lights it as a waste of money, since "[the police robot's] effectiveness is unclear", how there's "no public evidence about actual crime reduction", and how the "robot [needs] to be accompanied by a human officer at all times", negating the need for the robot altogether.
Interesting that you're doing a search engine comparison, and not add google into that comparison. Also, there are no sources at all, so we can't verify any of it, and I know that some of that data is incorrect. Sources would help us (the end user) determine whether our data is incorrect or yours is incorrect due to poor sources. Leaving out the sources, means this chart is actually rather pointless, because it can't be verified (as correct or incorrect).
E: also, ignoring cloudflare with this statement and zero explanation, removes author credibility. Either explain exactly why "cloudflare so who cares lol" or don't include that section at all.
This chart reminds me of this, which was actually quoted in a presentation as an actual quote...
Yes. And yes. And a short search shows quite a few blunders.
Edit. Autocorrect