Am I missing something? I only see the AI overview as an option after clicking the “try new features” lab logo. Are some versions of Google search forcing this feature currently?

Is making art with the rain an option?

Sand darkens when wet so that could make a cool canvas, theoretically.

You could also play with that “wall of rain” effect you sometimes see when you are just outside of a heavy rain area.

Alternatively, just make “social commentary” like a torrential downpour on the financial district. Sometimes art is just revenge.

What’s the old lingers?

If we find people who regret it, do we then need to ban it? Is there a certain threshold of regretful people we need to meet?

Do you expect a lot of people to regret something that happened to them before they were capable of forming memories?

deleted by creator

“According to Air Canada, Moffatt never should have trusted the chatbot and the airline should not be liable for the chatbot’s misleading information because Air Canada essentially argued that “the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions,” a court order said.”

Can you imagine the hellscape we’d be living in if precedent went the other way? Companies could just run every unsavory decision through some machine learning system and then wash their hands of it afterwards.

“Oh you were illegally fired? Sorry, that decision came from the Overmind, not from us.”

A majority of Americans want stricter gun laws, and that’s been consistent for quite a few years.

We also have a dysfunctional political system that prevents popular ideas from getting anywhere, but we’re not really unique in that I suppose.

Yeah cool, don’t explain or anything

I’d argue that debates aren’t useful without a neutral, mutually trusted media source that listeners from both sides would refer to for fact-checking. The US has debates but the soundbites that partisan media air are the main way people consume them. Few people watch the whole debate, and few want to because they’re mostly just hot air.

Plus, one candidate can use the debate to lie out of their ass and at least one media source will follow that up by spitting out misleading info to support the lies.

I don’t mean to both-sides this, obviously right wing media is more egregious on this front. But their captured audience tuning out fact-checks from other media is maybe the bigger problem.

All of this happening on the sidelines fundamentally alters the purpose of a debate. For example, changing the tone and style of interaction; people aren’t trying to come to an agreement or win over new supporters, just shout over someone to get in soundbites that can be replayed by their team.

I’m sure they’ll do it in a way that’s convenient and doesn’t require 14 clicks through obnoxiously designed popups every single time you use a Google service. Yep, certainly no way this could go wrong.

In some countries, they are

General strike/protest? Get enough people making noise on the street and people will have to listen. With a presidential election coming up, Dems won’t be able to fully ignore it either.

It takes mental effort to defend a group, or to engage in good faith discussion at all, really. People tend to pick up on key buzzwords that get thrown around a lot by certain groups and use those to gauge whether the discussion is going to be worth continuing. Concern-trolling and “I’m just asking questions” is quite common in these contexts, so both sides do this, to be honest.

I think the divide is bigger on more important issues, so compromise and bipartisanship are more likely on less headline-grabbing issues.

Sounds pretty culty, tbh.

The US forgets about everything on pretty much a weekly basis. Blame the 24 hour news cycle, I guess.

Targeting for the weapon itself is done by a human remotely at least right?

…

…right?

*eta: yeah, it looks like it has a remote driver who can take over the steering and control the gun with a little PS4 controller thingy

“Also, you hear stories about groomers.” Here’s the thing: grooming is a real thing, and it has nothing to do with being trans or letting kids know that trans people exist.

The sad part about all of this groomer talk from the right is: now this language is politically coded and no longer useful for discussing real grooming like high school teachers doing sketchy stuff with their students.

Not that anyone using this language cares about the well-being of actual children, but if they did you’d think they might consider something like this.

I suspect Vangelis’s work on BladeRunner had a big part to play in this

The author made a point of calling the head of the foundation “her” repeatedly after making clear they’re non-binary. I’m sure this article has no agenda or anything.