“If we didn’t create the evil misinformation bot, someone else would have. You should be happy it was a massive corporation that controls this patent, not some soulest unethical entity whose motives are profit over everything. That was a close one. Phew.”
Whoever downvoted you is as bad at math as OP
No I’m saying that they want the data. They can sell the data to others. They don’t need this specific city’s money for this specific camera. They need the data. It doesn’t mean that someone is paying for this specific camera. And doesn’t mean that the city even had access to this data anymore. Anyone can buy this data that has access to the system.
Once the camera is paid for and installed, it is almost free to operate. The only cost is data processing, and they want that data. They’d prefer someone else pay for it but they don’t need it.
deleted by creator
Sentences are concurrent by default unless the specific law they are convicted of breaking requires their sentence to be served consecutively or the judge specifically rules that they are to be consecutive. I am not really sure on the history of why that is though.
It’s mostly what it sounds like. Prison until you die. But, unless given a life sentence without the possibility of parole, once you’ve served a minimum number of years (and that number varies on the crime, state/federal law and judge’s applied minimums) you can become eligible for parole. What that means is a parole board can determine later that you have sufficiently served time for your crimes, that you are remorseful for them, and that you no longer pose a danger to anyone, and release you from prison before your death.
When it comes to sentences with specific years attached, like this guy’s 42 year sentence, it is a bit different. They can also end early with a parole decision, but there is a minimum time served for each sentence before you are eligible for parole. That minimum scales with the full sentence. It is, I think, usually 1/3rd of the full sentence, unless the judge sets a higher minimum.
Also you can be given multiple years long sentences, one per guilty verdict, but depending on the judge’s discretion or if those crimes are statuarily required to be served consecutively (i.e. one after the other), sometimes those sentences are to be served concurrently (i.e. at the same time). What that means is, if you get sentenced to two 1 year sentences and a 3 year sentence to be served concurrently, you’re really only serving 3 years. But if you have to serve them consecutively, you’ll be serving all 5 years in total. And your parole potential starts, thus, later.
So it’s kind of complicated. Sometimes you see someone getting a life sentence and they’re released in 20 years. Sometimes you see someone get a dozen sentences but they’re all served concurrently and they’re out in a few years too. Sometimes someone gets multiple sentences to be served consecutively and ends up with like 200 years in prison and are essentially guaranteed to die in prison before they are eligible for parole, despite none of their crimes carrying a life sentence potential.
Also this dude’s 42 years and life sentence are consecutive, so he must serve the minimum of both before possibility of parole. But that is probably about 35-40 years from now at minimum. I’m unclear if the mother’s 7 life sentences are consecutive or concurrent, but since they didn’t say, probably concurrent.
It also said that he was charged with the same 6 counts of child neglect though. So either the article was unclear on his actual sentence also being multiple consecutive life sentences or the charges of neglect didn’t all stick for some reason.
I don’t have any specifics but it could be that the father was not in a position to actually be responsible for her care at some point. Maybe the mother kicked him out or something. I’m just speculating, though. No idea really.
The problem with throwing in so hard with AI tools and using it to replace human labor is that when you inevitably decide that human labor is the cheaper option in the long term, it takes a lot of time and effort to find, and train and rebuild knowledge and specific skill. In the meantime, you are still relying on AI to fill the gaps. They were able to drop people fast and hard. They won’t be able to do the same with AI becuase people require more time to source and acclimate.
That means that, over the short term at least, these AI companies have a lot of industry by the balls. If they want to increase prices, even if that is the straw that breaks the camels back and gets them to start turning back to human labor, they are still going to pay those higher prices until they can.
That is not a recipe for a healthy long term business strategy for the AI companies. That will almost certianly lose them revenue in the long run, even with higher pricing. But if your investors are getting desperate for any return at all on their investment, a good solid pump and dump strategy makes that happen. They bail out before the other foot drops, collect their ill-gotten winnings, and walk away richer while the new shareholders eat shit when the price tanks.
The AI companies know this is a bubble just like everyone else. But bubbles are profitable to a select few if they do it right and that is all they ultimately care about. When the bubble pops, we’ll still have AI companies, but the market will settle somewhere far more reasonable and the tools will be expensive and niche and useful for special cases only. No AI company is trying to get to that point, it’s the just inevitable outcome. What they are trying to do is maximize their big payout, all else be damned.
Their revenue in the first half of the year was 16.3 billion. That is a big increase over the 1.2 billion over the same period last year, but assuming that continues, then their annual revenue is only 32.6 billion. That is revenue. Not profit. They actually still operate at a loss, 693 million in the same period this year. That is a major improvement over the 2.1 billion dollar operating loss from the same period the year before. The trend line is going up. But the fact of the matter is that they are still very much operating in the red and their current investors are not getting and payoff for their investment until they are profitable.
They cannot generate a profit without either cutting on hardware and infrastructure investment, making their models more compute efficient/limiting the use of less efficient models, or increasing token prices. They will definitely not do either of the first two things, so prices are going to spike as soon as they go public so they can attract more investors. That is my prediction. The current investors will also sell out their shares immediately and dump the stock price screwing over all of the early adopters. Mark my words.
While I agree with the sentiment, protest non-voting is already tantamount to infighting. This comment is just pointing fingers to set blame on another, which is stupid. But at the same time, calling for protest non-voters to unify with the rest of us should be the goal. That is the opposite of infighting. That’s not exactly what OP was doing, but that is the remedy.
My pronounced cowlick on right side of my forehead was from when I was a baby and my mom let a cow lick me and the cow spit made my hair get stuck that way. I was probably 4 at the time, believed her, and I was very offended that my mom had been so irresponsible as to allow this and leave me permanent defaced. I didn’t really question it again until i was probably 8-10
Won’t hold up in court.
“But we didnt mean for those things to happen.” “We didnt design it for that.” “We cant be held responsible for the AI going rogue.”
Bro, if I sold you a chat bot that sometimes committed phishing attacks and stole your identity, do you think “We just wanted it to make it really good at personalized conversations by getting to know you” frees me from the liability of how it determined it should do that and what it was capable of doing to follow through with it?
This shit is happening in your own labs. You can’t isolate and maintain control over systems that are 100% under your ownership and management with a team of tech experts, and you think releasing this stuff to the general public won’t result in 1000 times worse outcomes? How is that not criminal negligence?
The fact that they stopped roller coasters of similar design at other parks means that there is a possibility of a fundamental design flaw of the tracks and/or cars.
Someone else is saying that someone was ejected from a car and may have struck another car on the way down. That would align with the one death and others injured, and indicate a possible design flaw in the safety harness system. Maybe the primary and redundant harnesses failed through a design flaw. Maybe the rider/operator(s) misapplied the restraints and the operator(s) failed to catch the mistake. Either way, mechanical or process failure, means that their safety system needs to be reworked and/or more stringently applied. It takes multiple failures for something like an ejection to happen.
Zionism isn’t even an actual religious belief. It is a political one. A desire for a specific outcome and policies to support it
Patents aren’t given for what they do. They are given for how they do it. Two patents can exist for the same thing they do. But you cannot have two patents for the same mechanism by which they do it.
That being said, if the patent is “make AI do it”… I’m not sure that is patent-worthy.