site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 235114 results for

domain:amphobian.info

Just once, I'd like to see a protagonist with a game overlay try to clip through a corner by repeatedly crouch jumping.

I need to figure out where I want to go with the hobby.

Steel challenge is reasonably cheap, and a lot of fun

Odd, for some reason your comment was showing up as a child of mine. But after refreshing the page it seems to have sorted itself.

Apologies.

(Note i'm on mobile FWIW)

Bingo.

Trumps version of the same lie is something like "I've been told that the Teamsters like me a lot. They say over a million of them support me, can you believe that? Enthusiasm like you've never seen, the Teamsters are going to vote for Trump in massive numbers, just unbelievable numbers!"

I'm about 99% certain this robot is just a very expensive and fancy remote-controlled car. I don't think this incident has any bearing at all on AI, since no AI was involved.

However, on that note, I doubt there will be tens of millions of robots walking around anytime soon, even if (especially if) they are smarter than people...because if they are smarter than humans it will be much, much cheaper and more profitable just to connect them to the internet and have them do email and managerial jobs.

You're greenlit for a 10 episode Netflix series.

Only at this point, with Mickles now having departed the train and re-entered the platform, do the officers pull the trigger, with their backstop being the subway train, rather than the empty platform it would have been had they shot him when they first had the chance.

The platform isn't empty though, there's people on it. You're probably right that the train has a higher density of people, although neither was particularly full. It seems pretty likely that the cops wouldn't want to open fire in a big open space like that. It seems plausible that a bullet might even fly out of the station depending on how it's aimed.

I also like the guy who refused to move from his seat while this is all happening.

I didn’t reply to you, unless you are also @Blunicorn, so I’m not sure what you mean.

No, the robot in OP’s post did not shoot anyone. What I’m saying is that I am not necessarily afraid of the replacement of human cops by robot cops, if it means an improvement in the competence and decisionmaking of police.

What does any of that have to do with anything i said, and how did you type all that out in under 5 minutes?

Also are you under the mistaken impression that the robot shot the guy?

What's the line? Our tools have been rebelling against us since the first farmer stepped on a rake?

The idea that this is some sort of escalation or new and novel threat is frankly just dumb. People have been working on ways to kill eachother remotely since the days of Archimedes. It was a major part of his whole "brand". Im also quite skeptical of the claims that they will be "smarter than the smartest human" and or that we will "lose basically every challenge against them" claims.

The blanket play in the video was actually quite smart if clumsily executed, and as you yourself observed, the thing that actually stopped him was getting shot by a human.

Let’s compare this to the police-abolitionist left’s latest martyr. On September 15th, the NYPD shot and wounded a man named Derrell Mickles. Two bystanders were also wounded by gunfire, as was one of the officers on scene. (Apparently by a ricocheting bullet.) In stark contrast to the standard complaint about trigger-happy American cops, this scenario is an example of a very common problem, which is police officers being too reluctant to shoot.

The narrative being circulated is that the NYPD “killed a man over a $2.90 subway ticket.” Well, leaving aside the fact that nobody actually died, this is also a lie, because Mickles was shot for repeatedly charging at police officers with a knife. Mickles had jumped the turnstile at a subway station twice in the span of ten minutes. The first time he did so, police followed him and asked him to leave, which he did. Nobody was shot during this encounter, but Mickles brandished a large knife before departing the station. When he then returned and jumped the turnstile a second time, police followed him onto the platform, where the shooting occurred.

As early as 2:28 into the video, Mickles says to an officer, “I’m gonna make you kill me.” He then repeatedly shouts, “Shoot me!” as the officers ask him probably twenty times to drop the knife. 3:25 is the first time that Mickles moves toward police aggressively; at this point in the encounter it would unquestionably be justified to deploy a taser, and probably ruled justified to use deadly force. Instead, they hesitate, and seconds later the subway train enters the station and Mickles gets on an occupied Subway train with a knife in his hand. The police’s reluctance to shoot Mickens has now created a situation that is far more dangerous to the public. At this point the officers deploy tasers multiple times, striking Mickles at least once; he was almost certainly on drugs during the encounter, because he shrugs off the taser. Only at this point, with Mickles now having departed the train and re-entered the platform, do the officers pull the trigger, with their backstop being the subway train, rather than the empty platform it would have been had they shot him when they first had the chance. Their indecision - their reluctance to shoot another person even when that person is armed, dangerous, and actively goading them into shooting him - endangered their own lives and the lives of others.

Can you understand why I might look toward the decisiveness, the cold competence of a robot cop who’s not afraid of libelous press coverage or administrative leave or criminal charges by an anti-cop DA, and think, “Hell yeah, let’s get some more of that.” I want men like Derrell Mickles to be dispatched quickly and without fanfare, rather than allowed to put the public at risk. Police officers are nervous, pumped up on adrenaline, and can easily forget their training under stress. A robot would have done what needed to be done, and all the people on that train could have been on their way.

Github repo with course content: https://github.com/mikeizbicki/cmc-csci181-languages

All the lectures recorded and put on youtube: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSNWQVdrBwoa4KNaiKr-ayUdROZdSZ_1E

(unfortunately the audio didn't capture on the first video)

TLP is now about opposing all Republicans.

I think some or all of the underage content would be covered and illegal under federal obscenity law, if in the same marijuana sense. There probably is a Stanley v. Georgia right to receive non-obscene furry porn, though I wouldn't want to wager that much on any one piece as passing that test and I wouldn't be absolutely confident in Stanley surviving modern review.

I too have questions about "intent to continue doing so" - who actually tells the humorless polygrapher who's about to torpedo your career, "Yes, I totally intend to keep doing this"?

I tracked down the full complaint and security background paperwork (attachment 2, relevant page 147) on the FOIA project. 'Intent to continue' seems attached only to the supercategory of 'these types of images', even by the government's telling. Especially if Bierly didn't realize how deep shit he was in, not completely disavowing future consumption of above-age furry porn and/or insufficiently distinguishing between it is... plausible. And it's kinda clearance investigator's jobs to not let people they're investigat_ing_ realize the shit is neck-high.

((Hell, there are some internal parts of how tags/blacklisting worked at e621 at the time where that might have augmented that confusion even had Bierly been very aggressive about blocking underage content, though I expect no one wants to hear about those details.))

But short of his account getting linked to his real name, and maybe not even then, we're probably never gonna know with more certainty than just what he wants us to think the story is.

🤨🤨🤨

It's long distance, and "member of my family" here just means people related by blood.

However while I can't make any insight into whether the art community is shrinking or growing, the fact that this piece made you feel emotions, and then discuss them, is probably a victory for the artist.

They certainly succeeded at making a piece of art that evokes emotions, but that's just not my criteria for what constitutes good art since (as someone who dabbles in arts myself, primarily literature and music) I think it's trivially easy to do so - especially if you consider "intense hatred of and anger at the artist" a valid emotion to evoke. Part of the problem is that the art in Union Station looks like it was taken straight from an unfinished sketch. Skill is an integral part of it for me - an important part of being an artist is constantly questioning what you bring to the world others couldn't already offer themselves, and if your art lacks technique and is easily replicated, you genuinely don't offer much. In order for any art to be considered good at all, there also needs to be a way for it to be bad, there needs to be a non-trivial set of failure-criteria that a sizeable amount of people would not be able to reach. A lot of modern artists, even celebrated ones (e.g. Rothko) don't have that.

Furthermore, there are works that fit an art gallery that don't work in a public space. I don't know about you, but I don't think Francisco Goya's Black Paintings should be displayed in a public square, and that was constructed with infinitely more talent than whatever was in Union Station. I would honestly rather have an inoffensive, bland piece of public art than something that makes me feel depressed or annoyed every time I encounter it.

A criminal suspect has lost a fight against a police robot. First he tried shooting it, then covering it with a sheet. The robot tear-gassed him, then ran him over (after he was shot by a sniper).

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZI1j5GPuSvw

This happened in Texas where in 2016 the police used a suicide bot to blow up a BLM terrorist.

Humans currently are in the position where we can basically dominate everything else. There are some animals that are said to be intelligent, like dolphins, crows, octopus, honey badgers etc. but their evolution has basically hit a ceiling and they're not going to get to the point where they will be carrying around tear gas and AR-15s. So their intelligence doesn't bother us. But soon enough there will be tens of millions of robots walking around, each of whom is smarter than the smartest human. You will lose basically every challenge against them. What then? Nobody voted for this and there's no opting out. Fun.

Someone made a post here about how Trump lies vs how the establishment lies and this Guardian article typifies it. Technically true but extremely misleading and you can see in the twitter replies that some people seem to have been misled and now are calling for the president of the Teamsters to be removed because he is out of touch with the rank and file. A similar thing happened with the 51 intelligence agents claiming the Hunter Biden laptop had all the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation. Again probably technically true but extremely misleading. For example even if some of the intelligence agents knew 100% that it was not a Russian intelligence operation they could still claim it had the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.

Kinesis freestyle 2

Whoah, haven't seen you post in a while. Or maybe I wasn't paying attention.

that thing doesn't care about pollution. it uses a new system of territory, and only goes hostile if you build in its area. Pretty sure the lava planet doesn't have pollution at all, since the air is already a toxic stew.

Depends on what you mean by "really good." I just used mine out of the box and it's better than the others I've used.

Eh, even in DFW these houses sit and sit until upgraded to modern standards with things like actual breaker panels. There may be demand for uber-basic rental units, but not as a house- and certainly, there's not a lot of demand to own them.

For sure. I get paid mostly in shares of stock and it blows my mind that my colleagues will keep theirs instead of selling and diversifying.

I used to work a job doing inventories where we used machines that were nothing but a keypad and a one-line LCD display. After banging on that for 8 hours a day I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who can enter numbers faster than me without one.

I mean, it's an obvious lie that 77% of warehouse workers bothered to respond to a request for endorsement. But the claim 77% of the teamsters union supports Harris is, from a certain point of view, true, and that makes it a spin, not an outright lie.