I've read it 3 times, and I can't find a missing word. It makes sense to me. What word is missing?
ignirtoq
joined 8 months ago
No, they would respond exactly the way they already are responding. They would claim climate transition as a concept was made up by liberals, they would deny such a thing is possible, let alone happening, and they would enact policies in states they control to limit speech about it and punish people whose professions have to deal with it. You know, like they're doing in Florida to doctors and teachers about LGBTQ+ and to scientists about the climate.
Or the octopus boss from Seaside Kingdom in Super Mario Odyssey:
Democratic candidates have raised far more than Republicans and can purchase ads at the cheaper rate offered to candidates. Republicans rely more heavily on independent expenditures from their campaign arm and allied super PACs, which have to pay much more per ad.
Gee, it's almost like Republicans aren't favored by a large proportion of the population who can donate up to the ~$3,300 federal limit directly to campaigns and have to rely on their wealthy benefactors donating much, much more per capita through side channels that shouldn't even exist in a functional democracy.
How would you scientifically measure a difference between those two definitions?
plus why the right keeps mispronouncing her name
I mean, it's just racism, right?
It serves as a racist dog whistle and a cowardly way to slight the vice president without resorting to overt name-calling.
Yeah, same as always. Important to keep pointing it out, but not exactly an earth-shattering revelation.
I don't see how this wouldn't be derivative work. I highly doubt a robust, commercial software solution using AI-generated code would not have modified that code. I use AI to generate boilerplate code for my side projects, and it's exceedingly rare that its product is 100% correct. Since that generated code is not copyrightable, it's public domain, and now I'm creating a derived work from it, so that derived work is mine.
As AI gets better at generating code and we can directly use it without modification, this may become an issue. Or maybe not. Maybe once the AI is that good, you no longer have software companies, since you can just generate the code you need, so software development as a business becomes obsolete, like the old human profession of "computer."
This makes sense to me, and is in line with recent interpretations about AI-generated artwork. Basically, if a human directly creates something, it's protected by copyright. But if someone makes a thing that itself creates something, that secondary work is not protected by copyright. AI-generated artwork is an extreme example of this, but if that's the framework, applying it to data newly generated by any code seems reasonable.
This wouldn't/shouldn't apply to something like compression, where you start with a work directly created by someone, apply an algorithm to transform it into a compressed state, and then apply another algorithm to transform the data back into the original work. That original work was still created by someone and so should be protected by copyright. But a novel generation of data, like the game state in memory during the execution of the game's programming, was never directly created by someone, and so isn't protected.
If it's dangerous to repair it, it's dangerous to own. That's the domain for regulations by the government, not arbitrary software restrictions by software manufacturers.
They don't implement these to keep you safe. They do it purely to make more money.
Before my comment I want to make clear I agree with the conclusion that abortion bans are clearly killing women at statistically significant rates.
That said, the stats reporting here doesn't make sense:
Among Hispanic women, the rate of women dying while pregnant, during childbirth or soon after increased from 14.5% in 2019 to 18.9% in 2022. Rates among white women nearly doubled — from 20% to 39.1%. And Black women, who historically have higher chances of dying while pregnant, during childbirth or soon after, saw their rates go from 31.6% to 43.6%.
There's no way 14.5% of Hispanic women in Texas who got pregnant died some time during pregnancy, during child birth, or soon after. That would be unprecedented for any time since the advent of modern medicine. And the chart above this paragraph does not agree with it either. It's a chart of deaths per hundred THOUSAND live births, and the numbers for all racial groups are all under 100, so less than 0.1%.
The way it's stated also doesn't suggest it's a percent increase because it says it rose from 14.5% to 18.9%. I can't figure out what they're trying to say, but they should definitely have been more careful with presenting the numbers.
Quantum field theory conserves mass-energy, so the new mass is coming from the energy in the Higgs field itself. It settles to a lower energy state and basically transfers that energy as mass to all of the particles that couple with it. Since it's mass-energy and not just mass that generates gravitational distortions, the large-scale gravitational evolution of the universe probably won't change, as this just moves things around a bit. It's not creating energy out of nothing.
I don't think that word is required. If anything, I think
sounds more natural, if you have to add a word. They're speaking more colloquially, rather than formally, but I don't think the original is grammatically incorrect.