I think really you only need to get a solid punch on one kids jaw. One goes out cold, the others to into survival mode. I think the primary risk there is I might wear myself out chasing them down to mop up.
I'm gonna step back and just say this is all humorous. Don't hit kids... Unless they deserve it.
Note that the guy said if it gets peer reviewed. Many people have made many claims that would've changed the world as we know it, but until it gets repeated in controlled environments it doesn't change anything.
I think it's an achievable goal for sure. There's nothing I know of that makes room temperature anything but arbitrary so it could happen. If it did, yeah it changes a lot potentially.
But they're only each 9. Ever seen drunk dudes fighting in groups? They'd fight like that. Getting in each other's way, tripping over each other. Hell if my kid is any indication he'd just sit and play with toys the other kids left behind.
I could take about 5 at once given what I know of children, that's a reasonable limit.
They do it every time they want to keep inquiring and suspicious people distracted.
Once is an occurrence. Twice is a coincidence. Every few years for the past six decades is a pattern. Nothing ever comes of it but in the end new shit got to happen without interruption.
Like how do these people believe the government can keep aliens a secret but they won't buy that?
Edit, watch AOCs questions in that hearing. She is hot onto the point: she asks specific questions about the process and requirements for reporting phenomenon to Congress. She's doing that because this entire hearing is focused on whether grusch endured reprisals for whistleblowing. That's all they care about, that's what the House Oversight Committee does. And when she gets to the root, Grusch goes anxious, stutters, etc. But when he's talking about his claims it's highly scripted, no stutters, nothing.
Grusch is using the whistleblower protections to grandstand, AOC knows it. He's gonna be facing perjury charges within a month, bet. I'll bet even further, he's gonna flee the country and then claim the warrant they put out for him is "targeted" at him for whistleblowing. Conspiracy con artists all operate on the same script.
Twitter was also an important tool for journalists and researchers worldwide. Military targets have come from Twitter posts. It is a reflection of a huge chunk of society. You may as well call all of internet technology "just a porn box" for how wildly over generalized that statement is. The reality is your generalization comes from arrogance. "I never engaged in such frivolous behavior". You're here now. Yes you have and yes you do.
Even your comment is the first cousin of outrage, it's pure disdain. Nothing more or less, and exactly as valuable as outrage.
He's a bellwether for the party. "How far can we push the message". That's not ironically the exact purposes of primaries when you get down to it - consolidating a party message. You use different politicians to highlight different aspects, send them out and get the feedback. They'll do it for healthcare platforms the same way they will for fascist ones. Same game rules apply.
Might seem kind of snarky to generalize actual states and actual people and their actual lives as game theory, but that's exactly what they do. Because it works. Every major party engages in that kind of thing worldwide.
You're following me exactly, just not seeing what I'm pointing at.
I agree, a human can't meaningfully distinguish between a flat white picture made by a human (with say, MSPaint) and one made by an "AI" with a data model that includes the color Flat White. Similarly there's no meaningful distinction to be made between 4'33" as performed by an algorithm vs one performed by a master pianist - humans can't do that and neither can a machine.
We've called certain kinds of entertainment "formulaic" - well that wasn't inaccurate. It was. It is. We are. We are algorithmic. And just like in decades past when scientists put forth the idea that our emotions are just the combination of biology and chemistry, there will be serious existential pushback from certain sectors of humanity. Because it belittles the idea of what it is to be human and relegates us back to simple animals that can be trained. The reality is we are just that. And we keep proving it.
We've been seeing this problem framed as one facing teachers and educators: How do we know students aren't cheating and having an LLM writing their term papers? The reality is if they have been and teachers didn't catch that from the start? The fault isn't the tool they used. They're teaching and grading the wrong thing.
Language, like math largely did with the calculator, will be relegated to machines and algorithms because we already did that to ourselves a long time ago. We're just building the machines to do the same thing for us, and getting the desired results. If I ask you what 237 x 979 is I don't expect you to math that out in your head, I expect you to probably use a calculator to get that answer. But it's still important we teach kids how to multiply 237 and 979 together on paper. It's very simple to do that and avoid the use of computers altogether. It's basic writing skills after all. Teaching isn't about producing term papers, what does it matter that LLMs might be used to cheat them then? It's about educating the students. Our whole focus on the problems of LLMs is just highlighting over and over and over the problems we as society have had for a long long long time, far before anyone knew what an "LLM" was.
I really hate the label AI. They're data models, not intelligence - artificial or otherwise. It's PAI. Pseudo Artificial Intelligence, which we've had since the 80s.
The thing is that these data models are, in the end, fed to algorithms to provide output. That being the case it's a mathematical certainty that it can be reversed and thus, shown to be from such an algorithm. Watermark or not, if an algorithm makes a result, then you can deduce the algorithm from a given set of it's results.
It wouldn't be able to meaningfully distinguish 4'33" from silence though. Nor could it determine a flat white image wasn't made by an algorithm.
I think what we're really demonstrating in all this is just exactly how algorithmically human beings think already. Something psychology has been talking about for a longer time still.
Really wanna see how it handles the standard Photoshop touch ups. It's not like the news media has never altered photos to solicit a skewed perception.
In so many words you just said what I said. Safe spaces aren't where people go to affect change though, at least no where but within themselves. I'm not downplaying their importance by saying so either. I'm just saying that if you're looking to affect real change in society, that a safe space isn't what you want to do that in. It's not what they're for.
No joke, start digging into the guys who made ancient aliens and not too long after you start seeing Nazi shit in their past. Like explicitly so, not tangentially related, not "neo" but actual Nazis. Historical revisionism is literally the basis of the show, so you shouldn't be surprised that the main players are Holocaust deniers.
Wanna know who wrote the book the show is based on? It wasn't Von Daniken. He only wrote the first, unsuccessful draft. Utz Utermann rewrote the second draft that actually became very popular. Guess where he was from? Guess what he was doing during WW2? Writing propaganda for the Hitler Youth and working as the editor for Nazi newspapers. I'm dead serious.
Ancient Aliens is just soft selling literal, actual mystic Nazism and it always, always, always has been.
Don’t go looking for the safe place to have the conversation, make all spaces safe for the conversation to take place.
This. No safe space in the world will fix the problem. Safe spaces aren't for addressing concerns, but simply outletting them. Venting without fear. That's all they're good for. If you want to affect change you need to challenge the problems where they arise, when they arise. Directly. That's how you "be a man" today without being toxic: by having the courage it takes to say what ought to be said instead of the cowardice to let bad ideas go unchecked.
Manchin isn't that. He's a neoliberal. Southern Democrats were the precursors to neoliberals but manchin isn't one.
Southern Democrats were Democrats who voted against the civil rights act. Manchin isn't that old. He's been in office since the mid 80s. He is a classic neoliberal. Liberal on social policies, conservative fiscal policies wrapped in a feel good liberal gild.