jjcon

36 ms·

391.
by jjcon 5y ago
> they get nothing but scorn for trying to survive I guess selling user data is fine as long as it is done ‘to survive’? Nah… I’ll take the browser with the best privacy and that is sadly just not Firefox anymore.
392.
by jjcon 5y ago
In my case I had a recovery email set for my account and knew the password. I didn’t have any 2fA on but when I would try to log in Google just decided it didn’t recognize me and I needed phone verification - it wouldn’t use my recovery ema
393.
by jjcon 5y ago
Not at all my area of expertise but I imagine troll farms can have some obvious behaviors (mass copypasta patterns across a shared pool of ips etc) that can be effectively prevented. Less obvious behaviors are also potentially less massive
394.
by jjcon 5y ago
It is a slippery slope and I honestly haven’t formed my opinions fully on this. I tend to believe that if there are state run actions like botting or state funded journalism, that private companies that want to uphold ‘free speech’ ideals c
395.
by jjcon 5y ago
> That’s a nonsensical number from some clickbait article. Here are three sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-36320744 https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-deadliest-animals-201... https:&#x2
396.
by jjcon 5y ago
That is worldwide - I added US attack statistics as part of my edit to point out that something can be dangerous without causing death. Here you can read about the 25k deaths: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-36320744
397.
by jjcon 5y ago
I’m afraid of most of the things on this list (including plenty of humans) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to...
398.
by jjcon 5y ago
And the 4.5 million annual attacks in the USA alone?
399.
by jjcon 5y ago
> the paper you linked doesn't seem to support what you're saying in the slightest. The paper was part of my edit just looking at the 4.5 million attacks in the USA alone (where rabies is essentially gone) to point out that it
400.
by jjcon 5y ago
So if something kills less than 475k people we should consider it safe? What kind of reasoning is that?
401.
by jjcon 5y ago
Answer: Dogs kill 25 thousand people a year - they are not safe and people are allergic. Edit: It isn’t rabies that makes them unsafe - just in the USA about 4.5 million Americans are attacked by dogs every year resulting in thousands of ho
402.
by jjcon 5y ago
The law specifically states you can film if the officer is interacting with you
403.
by jjcon 5y ago
> The person who needs it the most, can't. This law is only about bystanders - if you’re directly involved you’re still allowed to film
404.
by jjcon 5y ago
Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet of an officer. This could be more to do with interfering with police activities than preventing evidence collection. Potentially unconstitutional either
405.
by jjcon 5y ago
They did say in their generation which could basically mean anything at that point
406.
by jjcon 5y ago
False, the long term NOAA models are far more complex than simple extrapolation (though that is of course a part of any forecast) and they certainly aren’t linear. Feel free to read up on them yourself: https://oceanservice.noaa.
407.
by jjcon 5y ago
If you have better sources than the NOAA estimates then by all means provide them, all I see is an unsourced claim and an anecdote
408.
by jjcon 5y ago
I actually think if we had the technology to do that we probably would be, we spend billions on climate research and even on carbon sequestration tech but we just don't have a good scalable way to do it yet.
409.
by jjcon 5y ago
Good to keep in mind that best estimates right now have sea level rising by less than 0.7 meters through 2100. 10 meters may happen some day but it will be a very slow process. https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/us-coast
410.
by jjcon 5y ago
Certainly significant but that also happens on a massive time scale - the best estimates have us up 0.7 meters in 2100. https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/us-coastline-to-see-up-to-...
411.
by jjcon 5y ago
Yeah often the more marketing dollars spent to hype something as AI/ML the less likely it is to be AI/ML - the real applications just speak for themselves in their own utility label or no.
412.
by jjcon 5y ago
>It's been my observation that "good enough" ML has been one year out each year for over a decade now. For self driving cars specifically sure - but ML has its deployments across huge swaths of industry from communications
413.
by jjcon 5y ago
>to the point of emergent consciousness But that isn't the goal nor the argument being made (not to rabbit hole in discussing that consciousness isn't even really a scientific term that can meaningfully be applied). We had some
414.
by jjcon 5y ago
>I haven’t changed my tune on this particular question since 1992 Well DL certainly hasn't been against a wall since '92. Pulls out phone with highly accurate voice to text, predictive keyboard, sensor activity detection, auto
415.
by jjcon 5y ago
I don't think any of that would put it outside the realm of science by any stretch though - science has its gradients, where some of it is ruled by math alone and other components are more data driven/'right until proven wron
416.
by jjcon 5y ago
If you don't daily drive an iPhone and you don't want to buy into Apples ecosystem, why do you want to develop for their ecosystem (which of course requires $100 a year to do so)? Genuinely curious cause I see a lot of people with
417.
by jjcon 5y ago
Since when is math outside the realm of science?
418.
by jjcon 5y ago
The US saw a 30%+ increase in homicide rate in 2020, and though official stats are not available yet, early reports point to another large increase for 2021. This would put the US in a similar position to crime 50 years ago. Before the pand
419.
by jjcon 5y ago
I think OP is saying in this specific instance a lot of people are defining the word ‘consciousness’ as to be outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Certainly there is room to question if neural nets have developed consciousness as an eme
420.
by jjcon 5y ago
It is pointless to debate with someone that invokes ideas outside the realm of scientific inquiry... that is definitionally true isn't it?

More ›