Cigarettes were marketed as actively healthy and good for the lungs. They used doctors to sell them. And wanted everyone to know that the only reason that smokers kept dying of lung diseases is because cigarettes are good for lungs so of course people with bad lungs were smokers. Duh.

When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking

Helluva headline given the story is about tied labour.

You think there’s going to be civil war and also, you want to maximise the numbers fighting for the fascists. Cool, cool.

Because handing election victories to fascists is a really, really bad idea.

I mean, yeah. All of this. Absurd.

But, FWIW, offloading cheap tat onto charity shops is not going to work well. It costs them money to put it on a shelf and it probably takes up more space than it is worth. Plus, they very likely can’t sell electrical equipment that has had its cord chopped up and repaired, or at least not without spending more on having it tested than they could sell it for anyway.

Next time, find a friend with small feet who would like to take it off your hands.

Because there is no mirror image.

@pjwestin@lemmy.world has given you a good description of fascist methods. They’re not available to the opponents of fascism because they are not fascists.

Fascism appeals to the worst parts of our nature. It gives permission to those feeling fear, humiliation or shame to lash out in anger and destroy the people that make them feel that way.

You can’t deploy the same tactics to make those people want to be on your side instead. If you try to shame them, they will just hate harder.

You should, of course, expose and ridicule the grifters who lead fascist movements and punching fascists is encouraged. But you need to distinguish between authoritarian leaders and the people they seek to lead.

You should not pander to the billionaire-funded leaderships (take note NYT), but you must not sneer at the people they are trying to lead (take note centrist Dems).

The event is called the Madrid Open.

I think you overestimate the amount of ‘thought’ going on here. (ref}

The way he plays with the meaning of words

She (or, if you’re not sure, they).

any kind of bureaucratic or rule-based decision-making

Human-written rules are often flawed, and for similar reasons (the sole human thought process that ‘AI’ is very good at reproducing is system justification). But human-written rules can be written down and they can be interrogated. But Apple landed itself in court because it had no clue how its credit algorithm worked and could not conceive how it could possibly be sexist if the machine didn’t get any gender data to analyse.

Perhaps that is the point.

That is, indeed, the point.

Oh, please! Streisand the fuck out of it. Plenty of people have done what he did without ever being forced to acknowledge it was rape. Keep this story going for the sake of everyone, everywhere.

It’s how LLMs work.

The systems didn’t do anything they weren’t told to do.

You’re thinking of the kinds of algorithms written by human beings. AI is a black box. No one knows how these models obtain their answers.

Where did you get insurance carriers from?

No idea what your post, before or after edit, is trying to say. But the subject of your quoted sentence is “proponents of AI” not “AI”, and the sentence is about what is enabled by AI systems. Your attempt at pedantry makes no sense.

If you’re suggesting that it is possible to build an AI with none of the biases embedded in the world it learns from, you might want to read that article again because the (obvious) rebuttal is right there.

It was known that the software was shitty and buggy before it was foisted on the Post Office, having been rejected by DWP (and the Post Office right up until they were given no choice). It was Blair’s decision, he didn’t want to upset Fujitsu or discourage investment from Japan.

Short and long versions of a report into that on the JFSA website.

Pressure from govt to pretend that it worked, and to make the business profitable for privatisation, caused this inhuman clusterfuck.

How is the microphone for phone calls?

So, none of you have stipends and it is a group project for class. See my original answer. They’re not going to have the same priorities as you and, if you’re going to work with a group, you need to accept that.

Throwing mountains of documentation at them isn’t going to work. Talk to them and find out what it is they are finding difficult. Break it down into more manageable chunks. Rough-code it and work out the details when they have a big picture to work from. Or whatever it is that makes sense given what you’re doing.

so I brought on some people to split the work.

Grad students are underpaid and overworked. Do they have any reason to care as much about the project as you do?

(and generally everyone I have worked with at school so far)

The context is a group project you have to do for school?

The reason I am checking is that these often turn into one person desperately trying to get the others to do something and ending up doing it all themselves. You’re not really talking about “people” so much as “students who half-arse it until a few hours before the deadline”.

What is it you’re trying to get them to do? Why do they need to read the stuff you’re sending them?

particularly documentation for tools and programs, data sheets, and application notes.

No one reads this stuff unless they absolutely have to. What is the purpose of asking them to read it?

gay != trans

Please don’t do this. There is absolutely nothing strange or startling about a people who have been subjected to genocide going on to commit it (see also: Serbia).

This sort of finger-wagging is crude and insulting, and the only outcome is far-right Zionists trying to pin the Holocaust on Palestinians and claiming that Palestinian animosity towards Israel is because of a European-style irrational hatred of Jews, not its colonial and genocidal actions.

This is not a morality play.