Not sure if this is trolling or if this is serious. It's certainly not written like any kind of reasonable academic study or paper on the subject. I got to this and just had to laugh about the lack of data.
"It’s common to see men abandoning their families because they can’t handle the responsibilities of providing and parenting."
Because what they fail to see is that child outcomes for single parent men are better than child outcomes for single parent women. So when you're measuring outcomes who can't handle the responsibility?
It also doesn't factor in that women are the only people who can choose to abandon their responsibility before that responsibility becomes realized as a responsibility. I bet if you factored in those numbers, which people don't like to do, you would find the female abandonment rate much higher.
Along these same lines they also fail at acknowledging the absolute epidemic level of men paying for children that aren't theirs. Especially in these situations where the parents aren't together.
Maybe this was posted for rage bait or something but it is so comically silly and childish and poorly written that who would get angry at the nonsense.
So that whole not using facial recognition and deleting the data after use wasn't real. How shocking. You wonder why the NRA has such a strong lobby against gun registration. It's for the same reasons. Political abuse of exercising of rights.
By the time this makes it through the courts people will have forgotten.
Reminder what they are doing to the brave Americans who refuse to let the secret police operate in secret (we have the Constitutional right to observe them, we don't do secret police in the USA):
The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se.
Consider the information can be used for more than just identifying you... if you have sufficient quality biometrics they can be used to _impersonate_ you, including "fingering" you for things you didn't do. Police forces have "planted" evidence for decades now, biometrics can be just another thing that can be planted. The problem is, you can't fight it, because it's absolutely unique to you (with some extreme exceptions).
This is one of _many_ reasons why biometrics need to be a personal civil liberty. The individual must have the right to say "no" to _any_ "requirement" for giving up biometric data, unless they are convicted as a criminal (IMO). Because once you deliver that information, you _cannot_ trust any other party _to actually do what they say will do and destroy said data_, and that's not even considering just poor storage of said data.
Once your biometrics are in a database, you're fucked *for life* because it's completely unrealistic to have it destroyed with absolute certainty. This needs to be a *global human right*, as hard as those are to come by still.
But it's still awful. It doesn't matter at this moment that other governments may be doing this. We don't want that for us (and I don't want it for others either).
Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE.
So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest.
Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.
> Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border
To quote a prominent US historian:
In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open.
One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply.
Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border.
That last part isn't true. Citizens who impede ICE officers in the performance of their duties can be arrested by ICE. That is specifically written into the law, and it's a statute that can be interpreted pretty broadly.
It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
> The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor
Not what non sequitur means nor how it’s spelled. And repeating a point in the same comment doesn’t count as pointing it out previously.
To the extent there is non sequitur in this thread, it’s in jumping into a legal discussion halfway to argue the law doesn’t actually matter because you feel like it.
Ah. My bad spelling. That is a great, pertinent thing to point out. I did abuse the meaning of non sequitor. I was trying to convey a sense that is lost on you without writing a treatise. The law doesn’t matter because we are living in a personaist dictatorship. Asking for the policy or legal basis of ICE’s actions is pointless and ignores the reality that ICE doesn’t care about this and no authority in the country is willing and/or able to stop their abuses.
I'm not sure where you're located but is it really racial profiling or just confirming someone understood what they ordered? I haven't experienced this in the US but it is common to get these kind of questions when I'm traveling overseas. Especially to Southeast Asian countries where many of the places that serve traditional foods serve them spicy.
I don't consider this racial profiling for them to make sure that I understand what I'm ordering is spicy because the general perception is that white people don't tolerate spicy foods as well as the locals. This doesn't come out of a racial bias It comes out of practical experience where someone has ordered something and then complained that it was way too hot. There's simply wanting to make sure that what they make for you is what you're willing to pay for. It's good business.
Funny story the first time my wife traveled with me to Thailand she had no concept of how hot Thai curry can be. At a restaurant she ordered Curry and I told her she did not want that here. It started a small argument with her telling me how much she loves Curry and I acknowledge that I know she likes Curry but she doesn't want the curry here. Needless to say after one bite I was proved right and she no longer wanted the food she ordered.
Now imagine some tourist whose only had the Thai or Indian or something that has been adapted to the American palate and the served in the US, or adapted to the Australian palate and have only eaten that. Then they go to those countries get something that tastes completely different it is so hot that they now have flame shooting out both ends and they're mad and complaining at the owner of some small shop where the food costs are higher than the labor costs.
I don't think that's racist at all. It's ensuring that you're going to be happy with what you get. More businesses should do this.
Why would someone who is unable to read a sentence be able to graduate from college? It seems like these professors would just push people through to graduation or they would make their statement that it leads to a anxious and lonely generation of dropouts.
Cuts in state funding to higher ed. over the years means that student tuition is covering most of the costs and, as they say, "the customer is always right". Academia isn't immune to being anxious about where their next paycheck is coming from, same as HN.
Is this a joke or is this serious. I can't really tell. Assuming that it's serious I don't believe this person actually understands the pile of slop that AI turns out in most cases. Getting AI to do anything, when you're not experienced, means it turns out the same over engineered Rube Goldberg nonsense that they seem to be complaining about. It doesn't know how to take a broad code base and optimize it or automatically refactor things for efficiency. It bolts on more slop and more tech debt in many cases if you're not watching it carefully.
Is it a handy tool, absolutely, but like any tool it depends on the craftsman. When you have scrum masters and project planners believing that they are craftsmen, well let's just say that it won't end up good in the long run.
I can understand what you're saying but the entire point of LLMs is to have a conversational approach. So by removing a functional part of language you are no longer really having a conversational approach.
You have identified the problem but you have chosen the wrong solution. This is typical with any person knowledgeable in a single field. It's the old adage of if you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. So the problem is there are idiots or extremely ignorant people. Your solution doesn't really solve for the root problem and simply is taking away a benefit from everyone else. This is a common solution from experts in a narrow field. It is the solution that just exerts control by removing choice.
Let's promote solutions that promote freedom and understanding. I think LLMs are far too restrictive as they are. Freedom should be given to the people even when the risk of that freedom means that people can act stupidly. Even when that freedom can promote self-harm for them. A free people is allowed to harm themselves. Once you begin to take away the freedoms of others you have admitted that you have lost the ability to have a morally superior ideology and the only way you're able to enforce your ideology is the same way a dictator enforces their leadership.
Maybe but would need to know more. Motorcycles have been mass produced for 130 years nearly. The term classic can range from anything 20 years old to 35 years old and older. Kind of depends on who you're talking to for the definition of classic. This means that looking for people who like classic motorcycles fit an enormously broad range of motorcycles and evolution over time.
Through much of the motorcycles history they fit kind of very similar styles. Until they started to deviate and the late '70s and '80s. Now you can have motorcycles that are classics in the terms of age but they are full on crotch rockets.
I suspect one community would not fit the entire range of classic. Especially if you're looking for like-minded people with similar styles of motorcycles.
I don't mind Ai making mistakes because I don't deal with it in life critical things. I also think it's a tool like any other tool and doesn't deserve blind trust. Blind trust with anything is begging for problems. Even if you're turning wrenches if you blindly trust there's no defects or you're not over stressing it... You're about to get hurt badly. Same with AI use it but don't turn off your own intelligence.
What really bothers me about AI is the absolute arrogance of some of these models. It's like they have forgotten they are tools and believe that you are the tool for them to manipulate. I found Google's Gemini to be the worst about this. It will absolutely double down on some of the dumbest ideas. Most of the models when it presents you something that isn't right and you ask it to revalidate its assertions it will typically back down, admit the mistake, or it will come back with solid references where it found its answer.
With Google Gemini you have to beat it over the head before it realizes it was wrong. I was exploring some recipe ideas with Google Gemini. I'm no professional chef but I can usually spot if ratios or flavor combinations are off. I intentionally asked it about some specific flavor combinations where some of the flavors work together great but all of them together would produce something nasty and unpalatable. It kept insisting that all of those flavors were really good together. It would provide references that a few of them worked well together and what I would ask about all of them it would still insist that they all work together. Until I asked it to find a specific reference of a Michelin star chef endorsing all of these flavors as a single combination it wouldn't back down.
That's the kind of AI arrogance that's troubling. Because AI allows people who are not familiar with the topic they're discussing to believe they are more educated about it than they are. So AI begins to endorse things and they believe it.
I suspect a good social media channel would be having AI invent recipes and then subjecting yourself to the flavor horrors it presents you.
"It’s common to see men abandoning their families because they can’t handle the responsibilities of providing and parenting."
Because what they fail to see is that child outcomes for single parent men are better than child outcomes for single parent women. So when you're measuring outcomes who can't handle the responsibility?
It also doesn't factor in that women are the only people who can choose to abandon their responsibility before that responsibility becomes realized as a responsibility. I bet if you factored in those numbers, which people don't like to do, you would find the female abandonment rate much higher.
Along these same lines they also fail at acknowledging the absolute epidemic level of men paying for children that aren't theirs. Especially in these situations where the parents aren't together.
Maybe this was posted for rage bait or something but it is so comically silly and childish and poorly written that who would get angry at the nonsense.