The courts are one place where AI could actually be useful. Right now we have a system where the prosecution prunes and curates evidence to tell a story, the defense does the same, and a group of 12 people, none of who can truly be impartial because they're human, pick which story they like better.
In less than 100 years I could see it being technically possible to simply dump all the available evidence into a computer, and it would automatically exclude things that were inadmissible, analyze what remained, and give a probability that the person was guilty.
The use of AI creates a whole new set of concerns, but I can't see how that can be any worse than a system where a juror can flatly admit to something like this and nothing can be done about it.
So I guess business dress is out at NASA too. Jeans and t-shirts on every one of them. I'm surprised they're not wearing pajamas. Compare that to pictures of mission control in the 1960s. Starched shirts and ties all around.
It seems like such a trivial thing, but professionalism really does begin with your clothes. If you're dressed like you're lounging at home, you will treat your job with the same relaxed attitude.
It takes a greater degree of self reflection than most possess to recognize your own biases.
From their perspective, their viewpoint is "centrist"- normal, reasonable, and just. Any deviation to the right would thus be unreasonable and abnormal.
The real cognitive dissonance comes into play when they don't extend that same criticism to deviation to the left. So we end up where these publications treat extreme left wing communist style ideology as "maybe just a little too harsh, or too much too soon, but fundamentally the right idea from good people just like me." And everything to the right of their opinion is treated as fascism reborn on a massive scale.
I basically view anyone who says they're Democrat (to include pretty much all the mainstream media) as mentally retarded at this point.
Someone at work was talking about the "Stanley cup" being the new hot thing, and I thought they were talking about the hockey trophy, so I was completely confused why young women had developed an interest in hockey.
Later, I read an article about this whole mug thing, and apparently 10 years ago it was Hydroflask. Women just follow the herd and are easily influenced.
Jesus Christ.
We're all here guessing whether this freak is a man playacting at being a woman or the other way around.
What a fucking clown show.
Oh, I know. Sorry, it was a rhetorical question to point out the absurdity that the practice is allowed.
The official justification is that they are only enforcing the same laws they would when on duty, so there's no conflict of interest. This is a lie, as they're only enforcing the laws that the entity that hired them wants them to, and they are ignoring all other violations- as in this example, where they are ignoring illegal immigrants that they would have reported immigration had they encountered them in the course of their regular duties.
To do otherwise means that they will be fired from that off-duty job. So you basically have someone wearing the uniform of San antonio, representing themselves as enforcing the laws of San Antonio and Texas, but really only enforcing the laws that Catholic Charities wants them to.
I don't actually have a problem with off-duty cops being security guards. The job is open to them the same as anyone else, but they should be required to leave their uniform,.gun, and badge at home because they are not acting in official capacity and are not representing the government when serving as a security guard.
Why are police allowed to take a second job as a security officer while continuing to wear their police uniform and carry their issued sidearm? You can't grab a gun out of the armory, don your uniform, and freelance if you're in the armed forces.
In the 1980's and before, they discharged women involuntarily if they got pregnant.
We are only getting dumber each day.
I think the progress of technology and society that has removed pretty much all danger for most people's lives was a bad thing. Nature had ways of culling the stupid and useless.
Dude, you don't have a constitutional right to vote on the Democratic (or Republican) party's presidential candidate. You have the right to vote for anyone who meets the requirements to be elected president in the general election. They don't even have to be on the ballot; you can write in anyone you choose.
Members of the Democratic party may have a civil cause of action if the party violated their own internal rules, but only someone who actually donated money to the party could conceivably be awarded any monetary relief. Since you're still free to vote for whoever you want in the presidential election and whoever isn't selected as the Democratic candidate is still free to run, there really aren't any damages for the court to provide relief for.
Even if disregarding the results of a state primary does violate party's own rules, it's unlikely that a court can or would force them to endorse a particular candidate, because compelled speech is barred by the 1st Amendment, which would trump any state election laws.
Bottom line- primary elections are a waste of taxpayer resources, have no basis in the Constitution, and have impermissively drawn government into the internal workings of private political parties. They should be abolished. Barring that, as private entities the political parties are under no obligation to honor the results from an election run on their behalf by a government body.
Microsoft seems a bit schizophrenic with the direction they're taking XBox. They are woefully short of first party titles and the acquisition of Bethesda and Activision was a way to correct this.
Now they're pushing ports of their few first party titles to PS5 and Switch? Console exclusives drive system purchases. Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Etc. being Nintendo exclusives is probably the only reason they're still in the console business.
Why buy an XBox if you can play all the same games on PS5 plus the Sony exclusives?
I've been to New Orleans a few times and never heard a single person speak with a French accent.
I get that the area has strong French roots, and maybe there used to be a prominent French minority there, but now it's mostly just blacks.
Cop not wearing uniform comes out of nowhere, doesn't identify himself and violently grabs somebody placing them under arrest for "assaulting a police officer"- I guess his upper arm assaulted the cop's hand when he grabbed it and started yanking on him.
We also get the "stop resisting" schtick while four of them have him shoved up against a wall and he's not moving. I can see US and Canadian cops are sharing notes.
And they do this in front of someone who's obviously filming the whole thing, so they don't even care that the visual record of what's happening doesn't match their stories.
The Whigs have entered the chat.
Wow, someone doesn't understand what political parties are and is really angry about it.
Political parties are not an official part of the US government- you won't find a single mention of them in the Constitution. They certainly have nothing to do with the principles our country was founded on.
What they are is a private organization of like-minded people who band together to increase their power and electability. Basically it's more effective to campaign as "John Smith, Republican" than "John Smith, independant thinking human" because voters are stupid and can't be bothered to research candidates. The parties allow them to pick someone who they probably will generally agree with.
Which leads me back to my original point: There's nothing in the Constitution about primary elections for the president. There's one election for the president and it takes place every 4 years. The only purpose for primary elections is for political parties to choose who will run under their banner. So why is the state involved in administering it and developing rules for it in the first place?
Why are states even in the business of primaries anyway?
The Democratic party is a private organization, and can choose its candidate using any method it wants. They have already said that if New Hampshire doesn't do what they want they will simply invalidate the results and take away their delegates, which is their right.
The sole purpose of a primary election is for the political parties to choose their candidate for the general election. Not a single dime of public money, and not a single moment of a government officials time should be spent on this endeavor. It's an entirely internal process to the political parties and they should pay for and administer it however they choose.
This would be the same country where they will freeze your bank account if you support protestors against the government. Not even protesting yourself, but simply supporting those who do.
"Constitutional right". Fucking retards.
For those who aren't steeped in WWI-era history, I would like to remind you that the commies in Russia tried elections first, but when they failed to win outright, they simply dissolved the Russian legislative body and started a civil war:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election
This is the real danger from the left. They piggyback on legitimate laws and institutions when it suits them, but are just as quick to discard them when they no longer serve their purpose. This is the nexus of calls to add justices to the US Supreme Court or turn DC into a state. When the rules no longer suit them, they simply change the rules.
Paywalled, and Bloomberg. No reason to send them ad revenue.
The left: Free elections are the highest expression of freedom and democracy. The people must be heard!
People do not vote for the left
The left: Free elections are a threat to democracy!
the decline is a necessary consequence of increasing educational attainment
College used to be for middle class and above. If you let dumb people into college and lower the standards so they don't fail, of course the average IQ of college students will drop.
The look on his face. You can just tell that kid is going to be a problem when he grows up.
Fight Club and American Psycho were based on books written by men. Any bets on this poster even knowing they're film adaptations of previously existing novels?
The screenplay for Fight Club was written by a man and it was directed by a man. There is no evidence of any female influence in either Fight Club the book or Fight Club the movie.
The screenplay and direction for American psycho were done by women. I'm not sure that really means anything, as it fairly faithfully captures about the first half of the novel.
The novel was written in the 1980s as a critique of consumer culture, which is why Patrick Bateman has these weird interludes where he goes into depth about CDs and songs. It's even more apparent in the book where he describes what brand of clothes everyone is wearing in each encounter, and there are more interludes that talk about things like his CD player.
That's true, and unfortunately it would be true even if he had won a huge judgment against them and they were officially on record as illegally discriminating against him.
The simple fact that he was fired and involved in a lawsuit would scare off most employers.
I wonder why he didn't want to go all the way, especially when the incident happened in front of a room full of people who gave affidavits same the girl was lying.
I think 1 to 2 years salary would be the minimum award he would have gotten, as they've damaged his earning potential for the rest of his life.
It was a settlement, meaning he must have decided this was the best he was going to get, or it wasn't worth it to fight for years to get more.
The college probably viewed $185k as a screaming deal, considering they were going to be on the hook for thousands in legal fees even if they won, and they stood a good chance of having to pay for both lawyers plus a much larger award and the negative press from losing a wrongful termination suit.
In addition to the $185,000, the agreement includes St. Philip's College writing a neutral job letter of recommendation for Moravits.
You generally get this anyway, as former employers don't want to be forced to prove everything they said about you if you end up not getting a job based on their recommendation. I would have demanded that the recommendation letter be glowingly positive or the deal was off.
Sounds like justifiable homicide.