Really we should be asking (I want to know) why FEMA invented their own USAR standards instead of adopting the INSARAG ones? Why the US have put so much more money into USAR and not flood and storm response? Surely after Harvey and Katrina, not to mention tornadoes, you’ve learned that having something like Australia’s SESs would provide you with surge capacity of people skilled in storm damage mitigation and flood rescue? I really would like to know

Well, poor black people at least

People getting brake and break mixed up annoys me, but I get it. If this is you, your car has brakes and you take a break from work after breaking your arm.

Like… a water tank?

Mitch Hedberg jokes while high is a pretty smart move. Either that or you’re the only person who finds them funny and end up looking like an idiot.

1 in 1000 year events are poorly named. One because it describes a likelihood, so this storm had a 0.1% chance of occurring in any given year, so we’d expect to see a storm like this once every thousand years on average. It’s not cyclical. Two, the likelihood of these storms is steadily increasing and so it’s probably no longer a 1 in 1000 year event.

Almost certainly not. It’s common in some communities for people to write their own image transcriptions.

All of these things are only valuable if you do not have the technical expertise required to analyse the validity of the conclusions the authors draw from the methods.

No, it’s make everyone’s quality of life better! /j

Given that he said he had no money for a funeral I’m guessing he was planning to pull her body out one day and go “oh my goodness, she’s dead!” and have a funeral rather than just try to continue collecting her pension in perpetuity.

I doubt Trump’s followers will think of this as a breach of their 2A rights. They will likely think that it’s black people and bad actors who will have their guns taken for the safety of the boys in blue.

True, zip ties would also fit in that category

I’d go for jumpers, tape, and a tarp. Using the car battery makes it seem like your car battery died. Rope would also make it creepy.

I say “look it up”. Applies to lots of forms of search, be it google, DDG, YouTube, Wikipedia, a dictionary, a manual, pretty much anything.

Why are outdoors cats so widely accepted? We have had cats for millennia. They are deeply ingrained in our cultures. We have known about their impact on local wildlife for less than 100 years. It will take time for it to be socially unacceptable to have a cat that is allowed outside.

I watched it instead of doing an assignment in high school. Made a lot of sense and little difference.

Spot on!

Worse still is the pronunciation of “bologna”. How. Just how. None of you seppos have the right to tell me about how I pronounce “herbs” or “pecans”. Then again, our pronunciation of “lieutenant” is messed up.

Copyright gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to modify the work, to use the work for commercial purposes, and attribution rights. The use of a work as training data constitutes using a work for commercial purposes since the companies building these models are distributing licencing them for profit. I think it would be a marginal argument to say that the output of these models constitutes copyright infringement on the basis of modification, but worth arguing nonetheless. Copyright does only protect a work up to a certain, indefinable amount of modification, but some of the outputs would certainly constitute infringement in any other situation. And these AI companies would probably find it nigh impossible to disclose specifically who the data came from.

Nobody has been able to make a convincing argument in favour of generative AI. Sure, it’s a tool for creating art. It abstracts the art making process away so that the barrier to entry is low enough that anyone can use it regardless of skill. A lot of people have used these arguments to argue for these tools, and some artists argue that because it takes no skill it is bad. I think that’s beside the point. These models have been trained on data that is, in my opinion, both unethical and unlawful. They have not been able to conclusively demonstrate that the data was acquired and used in line with copyright law. That leads to the second, more powerful argument: they are using the labour of artists without any form of compensation, recognition, permission, or credit.

If, somehow, the tools could come up with their own styles and ideas then it should be perfectly fine to use them. But until that happens (it won’t, nobody will see unintended changes in AI as anything other than mistakes because it has no demonstrable intent) use of a generative AI should be seen as plagiarism or copyright infringement.