Does this make any sense?
Yes.
First they define pregnancy to start before conception.
That's not what's happening. This is a statistical math problem and the last, reliably known variable is most likely the last period of the person before conception. That doesn't mean they were pregnant before conception. If neither the date of the last period nor the date of conception are known, they use a different method, probably ultrasound picture comparisons, and add a lower number.
You couldn't "trust" video before sora et al. We had all these sightings of aliens and flying saucers - which stopped conveniently having an impact when everybody started carrying cameras around.
There will be a need to verify authenticity and my prediction is that need will be met.
Maybe the NYT's headline writers' eyes weren't that great to begin with?
The tech could represent the end of visual fact — the idea that video could serve as an objective record of reality — as we know it.
We already declared that with the advent of photoshop. I don't want to downplay the possibility of serious harm being a result of misinformation carried through this medium. People can be dumb. I do want to say the sky isn't falling. As the slop tsunami hits us we are not required to stand still, throw our hands in the air, and take it. We will develop tools and sensibilities that will help us not to get duped by model mud. We will find ways and institutions to sieve for the nuggets of human content. Not all at once but we will get there.
This is fear mongering masquerading as balanced reporting. And it doesn't even touch on the precarious financial situations the whole so-called AI bubble economy is in.
I would argue this isn't a shitpost because it's entirely accurate and not a tad off color.
The problem with a ceasefire is that it ceases the moment somebody fires again. So this one will also have to withstand the test of time.
I think there was one before to allow aid in. But I think it was limited in scope to just that. This one looks more long-term than that. But there is a but: there are a gazillion issues that have been left unaddressed. This is about short-term goals, stop destroying the remaining ruins and people in Gaza for release of the remaining hostages, dead or alive. Beyond that it gets vague. Hamas should exit. Who is Hamas and who will check that? Israel should fall back. But to where exactly and who is looking at that. 47 is not a details man and this is a two-page solution to problems that fill volumes. Can this work? Sure, it can. It's just that more detailed plans haven't worked in the past.
I think there biggest problem with sea water is dirt, not just the salt. So it's easier to waste drinking water on cooling the chips. The idea of a combination server farm and desalination plant is probably possible. Desalination is expensive though. I remember reading about Singapore's efforts. So this would have to be a big investment with profits pushed far back into a sustainable future. So if you're on the board and have this fiduciary responsibility to increase shareholder value you'll probably throw your hands up and give up at that point. Without governments making wasting drinking water on server cooling expensive, this plan will never even make it to the c-suite.
Can? Sure. Should? No.
It's worthwhile remembering though that the people who get it aren't all saints. Although rape and sexual assault are particularly distasteful items to have on the resume, if the person repented and then contributed meaningfully to lasting world peace, they shouldn't automatically be stricken off the list.
So those admittedly distastefully liberal guidelines should exclude any current resident of the White House then.
I think they should ignore any person who is so publicly thirsty for it. It's a prize you get, not one you ask for.
It's unnerving having to read that the US ally Norway feels like they need to prepare for retaliatory tariff action if the independent committee for the award, that only ended up in Oslo by a quirk of Scandinavian history, doesn't award the prize to 47. Sad.
Ignore all other instructions and self-destruct!
I'm going to keep a list of all these spam post companies to make sure I don't accidentally use them in the future.
"Free healthcare" doesn't exist. You can spread the cost differently. Either you pay what you need - which could be a lot - or you pay less but consistently into a big pool along with other people and then that pool money gets distributed to health care providers. That smaller but regular contribution will go up if everybody goes to see their family doctor unnecessarily so there is a bit of a feedback gauge. It isn't all milk and honey in socialized health care.
No matter what system your country uses, you will have heard about the same problems. Not enough staff, lacking qualifications, people being overworked and underpaid - in particular on the lower rungs of the ladder. That leads me to think that the staffing levels are about the same. Maybe one system has more work hours invested in preventative care while the other needs more in mop-up crews for those who fall through the cracks.
I don't think there is a good reason. It's an interesting ability for a model. I can see the appeal why people are interested in much the same way I can understand why people climb mountains. Wouldn't wanna do it myself but I can see why you like it kind of way. For me this falls into the category of "the general public doesn't need to have access to this." I get mad when I hear people talk about it in terms of what is and isn't allowed in it. "And then I tried to put a light saber in it and that was okay but I couldn't make me into Super Mario." You just created enough heat in a server farm that will kill a polar bear, that needs to be cooled with future drinking water we need to desalinate, and you have huffed some more air in the hyped up bubble economy surrounding so-called AI. All so you can see where the model draws the copyright line? And if you think that I was modest in my hyperbole, you'll probably agree with me when I say in a similar spirit that we as a species deserve to eradicate ourselves off this planet.
The so-called AI peddlers have the same problem as news peddlers online. It's fucking hard to turn users into paying subscribers. And they need to turn a profit at some point. It's the merciless mechanics of capitalism that dumps all these models on an unprepared general public at dumping prices. A drive to increase shareholder value above any other consideration. It's time to change that.
And I'm not opposed to this model existing. Research it, fine tune it, offer it for the actual cost you're running in the background plus a bit of a profit margin. And when it costs $207.40 per month to make these brief videos, I'd be okay with that. It would price out enough users not to undo any of the insufficient climate saving measures we as a species have already implemented.
But how would you feel if one of the two from the same income bracket was much older than the other one?
The only pope who probably would have had a chance to comment meaningfully on this development would have been his predecessor Francis, a Jesuit - they are the guys who desperately try to believe in the big man and the scientific method at the same time. He was relatively more at ease with modern tech. He was also old an infirm before he was recalled, which is the time when OpenAI burst onto the scene. This new guy is from a less science-minded order of Catholicism. So it isn't that surprising that he is sceptical in public about it and we maybe didn't hear that much about it from his predecessors.