Dukeofdummies

I always include the rider because the picture of the bike is on the street. A bike or motorcycle on a street is “everything I do not want to hit”.

That’s what I was wondering, it’s 12km at it’s widest, so 6 km max from the border. A balloon, a series of drones a spyplane has range, which Israel doesn’t need. The same drones that were keeping eyes on the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis could stay in the air longer and use less fuel.

Even then either is going to just show groups of people, you’d need hours of steady footage to even attempt to make deductions. I would’ve figured it’d be a stream of several drones for 24/7 coverage.

So, I’m a bit younger than the era you’re looking for, but my dad was an alcoholic and I remember as a kid being in the local bar and being juuuust short enough that I was just under the smoke line. I had to breach that line to get up on a bar stool and ask for a kitty cocktail. It always felt like I crossed the border to another world whenever I did.

I think I need to use more force to clear my lungs than my peers, but other than that my lack of athletic ability is mostly self inflicted.

I mean, Microsoft isn’t free. Linux is.

I hate the idea of hints. Because A. You then have to make the person your interested in make their own way towards you, and B. Then they have to notice it and then take a risk. I think it’s FAR better, to give your crush an opening, serve them a line on a silver platter.

For example:
My wife was interested in me and she opened with:
“Am I too close?” To which I could’ve replied “nah you’re good” or “yes, a bit” without any fuss. but, since I was also interested, I replied.
“Oh nonsense, if anything you’re not close enough” which, can easily be dismissed as me being silly, but nope, she’s interested. So she responds
'OH really? So how close can I get?"

Like, set up a romantic line. If there’s a romantic line to be had. If they’re interested, they’ll take it.

No, I think the comic is making you think about the system at large. It’s not the anchors that are the problem. Anybody in any position can be where she is.

You could be getting tons of money… not to produce anything or to improve the world, but to maintain power for an upper echelon. It could be a lawyer, it could be an influencer, it could be a pundit, a politician, a programmer, a security guard, a military contractor. There’s this idea that a large paycheck is because you deserve it, because you are providing what’s needed. In reality a high paycheck can be given to you because you’re part of a problem that someone wants you to maintain.

Perhaps the main use for technology is increasing the amount of inequality society can tolerate without collapse. I can’t fix inequality – that just seems to be what the humans want.

However by investing in surveillance technology, computer vision, and AI I could perhaps help our society to bear unbounded amounts of inequality indefinitely, without collapse. Social collapse is a less-than-zero-sum game, whereas an unequal society is still generally more-than-zero-sum. So I posit that the latter is objectively better.

… Are you suggesting that we increase inequality to make the world better? Like we need an overlord, be it robot or human, and the rest of the population needs to be placated, worked to the bone, and easily replaced?

I gotta assume I am just vastly misunderstanding something in this argument, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what it is. Is it just sarcastic?

It’s always first person for me, but the one lucid dream I ever had I dreamed I was playing kirby on a gameboy advance and I was absolutely the kirby. So I suppose that was third person at least once.

I don’t know why, but I always imagine knights moving forward and then left or right, I always get infuriated for some reason when I see their movement described the other way around.

Until you realize that the people who make the final decision on whether something the AI saw is indeed too far or extreme are the exact same people making the decision now and all we’ve succeeded in doing is creating a million dollar system that makes it look like they’re trying to change.

So fix that. Don’t make an AI to dole out justice against police like some messed up lottery. This is such a hollow solution in my mind. AI struggles to identify a motorcycle, people expect it to identify abuse?

I am so confused by this, why does there need to be AI involved in this at all?

If somebody has a complaint, pull the footage, then the plaintiff goes over the footage and makes their case against the police officer. Why would an AI be necessary to find complaints that are not being complained about?

I feel like it’s a technology solution for what should be a “more transparency and a better system” solution. Make complaints easier and reduce the fear factor of making complaints.

Why isn’t there vr animation software? Why can’t we have several people pop up in an instance and animate avatars like a stop motion movie?

It’s because a person can crank out a deep fake in 3 hours, and a crappy one in one. It never cropped up because… well lets be real it was a couple of weirdos that were doing it, unless it bubbles up from the dark corners of the internet you risk the Streisand effect by bringing attention to it.

AI can crank out 40 in a minute. 7200 in three hours. That’s an entirely different beast. The sheer mass and volume ramps up the odds of any image bubbling up from the dark corners of the web falling into the limelight and now this problem that wasn’t big enough to merit thought is rearing up it’s ugly head right in front of us.

You can generate unique pictures of Taylor Swift faster than even Taylor swift can generate pictures of Taylor Swift. Within one hour of Taylor swift being seen with a man (and you have enough images of the man) you can create a dozen images of her on a date with that man and attempt to sell them to paparazzi.

The problem is volume. Just like how email made everyone connected and allowed the Nigerian Prince scandal to occur.

Yeah, there is a large fixation on whether he did or did not pull the trigger and I genuinely feel like that’s not the straw that breaks the camel’s back, because ultimately he was told it was a clear gun.

What matters is:

• Did he know that there were serious concerns about gun safety on set?

• Did he use his star power/producer role to silence those concerns?

• Did he retaliate against people who raised those concerns?

If he did any of those three things, then you have a rapidly strengthening case that he knowingly endangered the crew, and he should have known NOT to have aimed that gun at anybody. You made that gun unsafe and then the gun went off in your hands because you reaped what you sowed.

You can’t mention the dominator and not add a gif of it moving from non lethal to lethal mode

While this looks cool, my phone can’t actually scan any of these. Anybody else have any luck?

well I feel like an idiot. I always credited Duke Nukem for that line.

What is the beginning of eternity, the end of time, the beginning of every end, and the end of every place?

E, it’s a really mean one when delivered verbally

I always use edge whenever I’m making a public presentation with a computer I use. Simply because I never use it. Then autocomplete won’t embarrass me if we look something up.