Skip Navigation

User banner

HumanPenguin

@ HumanPenguin @feddit.uk

Posts
9
Comments
853
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Robot packers and AI cameras: UK retail embraces automation to cut staff costs

    Jump

  • Yeah that was sorta my point. Modern/ current technology at best mimics some functionality of intelligence. Hence my claim it is artificial. It really is no more then 1980s expert systems with much greater data speeds and sets. And more flexible algorithms. But an evolution not a revolution.

    He ce why I'd say artificial intelligence applies to current technology. Because it is not real.

    If we ever develop anything that is intelligence as many fear it. Then by its very definition AI is no longer a valid term for it. Hence why O think we should stop using that term when talking about weather such things are safe or not. First It gives the impression to the less informed that we are anywhere close to such tech. Creating invalid fears of current tech. When lets face it their are plenty of genuine arguments about the massive use of data.

    But more importantly if ever anything (sci-filike as it may be) that is trully able to learn and think for itself is developed (if that would even be the correct term as we really are that ill-informed on how atm) . Then artificial would be a miss definition.

  • Labour is wilfully ignoring that the climate crisis is at a crunch point.

    Jump

  • If we never drill for it. Or allow anyone else. Studies will run out eventually.

    It is in no way a solution. But the simple fact is adding new wells extends the time corperations and governments can delay implementing alternatives. Increasing the total amount of harm done to the enviroment.

    It is not a zero sum game. Providing our own dose not mean the world burns the same amount t it means we burn for longer with less urgency to alternative options and inferstructure.

    I mean honestly I am 54 years old. I learned about climate change in school in 1982. It was known proven science back that far. Esso/Exxon was the company that discovered and prooved it was man made back in the early 70s. They then decided to invest billions in climate change denial. Internally selling ideas like the one you are sharing.

    These ideas exist for one reason. To allow oil companies to extract every fucking penny they can out of oil. Before we stop them. Its fucking disgusting that they have not been jailed.

  • UK will not follow US on ICC sanctions, PM's spokesperson says

    Jump

  • If they were. (As unlikely as that seems)

    Actually stating so would be the best way to prevent having to do so. That is what bothers me about media asking world leaders this. All they are doing is giving a war criminal a list of safe and unsafe nations to visit. Surely any nation that was seriose about wanting to arrest him. Would remain silent about it.

  • Too many young people find doing a day's work 'stressful', says Liz Kendall

    Jump

  • Most age groups find a days work stressful.

    Young people are just the first generation to be unashamed to admit it.

    In part because we grew up with to many rancid arse holes like Liz Kendal expressing her toxic crap.

  • As Labour touts more brutal cuts to benefits, how is this different from life under the Tories? | Frances Ryan

    Jump

  • Nope the fact is FPTP is mathematically garrenteed to force a 2 party system. As 3rd parties will always split the vote forcing control to the more unified but smaller opposition.

  • Russia Welcomes USAID Cuts, Calls Agency ‘Machine for Interfering’

    Jump

  • The political direction of other nations. Honestly it is what all wealthy nations use aid for.

  • As Labour touts more brutal cuts to benefits, how is this different from life under the Tories? | Frances Ryan

    Jump

  • Welcome to FPTP

  • Water bills in England and Wales to rise by £123 a year in April

    Jump

  • You can apply lube.

  • Wimbledon school crash: Woman rearrested over deaths of two girls

    Jump

  • Its only a defence. If she has no history of diagnosable attacks.

    I am no expert on epilepsy . But know young diagnosis is far from exclusive. So it is entirly possible this was her first attack. Or even the first attack she recognised as such. (IE not happening when she was asleep or otherwise unable to identify).

    But if she has ever had an event she should suspect makes her unfit to drive. She is required to tell the DVLA and not drive.

    But that recognition requirement is hard to define. Drivers are not expected to be medical experts. So in general unless a doc has told her. It would be hard to proove she is aware of any risk.

    T1d myself. Diagnosed long before I was able to drive. I now do not drive because my condition is not safe to do so. But was in the situation for almost 30 years. Where I was required to testify my stability to drive every few years. And could be held responsible if I did so falsely.

  • Wimbledon school crash: Woman rearrested over deaths of two girls

    Jump

  • No. At no point is lackmof evidence proving someone innocent ever acceptable to debate at a trail.

    And I the lead up to the trail. It is not something even the defence or prosecution is likely to consider. As neither is able to consider it as argument. Or make decisions on taking the case based on such.

  • UK would need forest ‘twice size of London’ to offset new airport expansion.

    Jump

  • We need to sharply and rapidly stop producing CO2 immediately

    Can I recommend a new law requiring billionaires the travel only by trebuchet. May solve more issues then just CO2

  • Wimbledon school crash: Woman rearrested over deaths of two girls

    Jump

  • it would be difficult to accept this one without evidence.

    Sorta not the point. We are talking about the person being accused. So reasonable doubt is in her defence.

    It is down to the prosecution to either prove this is false. Or prove she had reason to know it was unsafe for her to drive.

  • Not enough teachers, children turned away: Schools 'can't cope' with population boom

    Jump

  • Might happen vs predicted to happen.

    May seem like a small difference. But its really not. It changes possible to probable.

    That said. The prediction is based on no changes. So you know full well this is being jumped on by right-wing media that have other reasons for arguing the change.

    IE its about rich not wanting to pay the taxes needed to support the future p opulation. So arguing for anti immigration as a cost saving that won't effect them.

  • Gen Z far less likely to be atheists than parents and grandparents, new study reveals

    Jump

  • Yeah but that definition of spritual.

    Looks to some like a group of potential cult members. That just need conversion.

  • Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin blames 'dinner party classes' for pubs crisis

    Jump

  • While that is all true. Post the jaffa cake thing we had a change in VAT laws. Some time in the 1980s. Where food and drink becomes vat applicable is served or prepared to eat on premises.

    Part of the whole idea is eating out is a luxury where as preparing your own food at home is seen as essential.

    As alcohol is not actually seen as a luxury product but simply food. It meets the same rules VAT wise. Although it has its own additional taxation like tabbaco.

  • Robot packers and AI cameras: UK retail embraces automation to cut staff costs

    Jump

  • I always considered the sci-fi def of AI to be the incorrect one. Once sentience appears. The intelligence is no longer artificial.

    Seems to me the systems we have now that try to (badly) fake it, are real AI. And any created intelligence would be a Digital Intelligence or even just Created Intelligence.

  • ‘Net zero hero’ myth unfairly shifts burden of solving climate crisis on to individuals, study finds

    Jump

  • Not news so much as bloody obvious olds.

  • UK’s 20mph speed limits ‘are cutting car insurance costs’

    Jump

  • But a helicopter and hire a pilot.

    If you not Musk. A circus cannon.

    But you really should not be driving on that health state.

  • A Hung Jury in the Latest Just Stop Oil Trial Shows the Nonsense of these Prosecutions

    Jump

  • When you are doing something for publicity.

    Possibly suffer

    It is at the least probably suffer.

    If you are intentionally damaging property while looking for publicity. And do not expect to face legal consequences. You are seriously failing to learn from history.

    In this case. The jury was specifically ordered to ignore her motive for the actions. That was what prompted the response I quoted. And this is the case in the vaste majority of crimes.

    Her argument was that climate change is not a belief but a fact. Unfortunately, that is not what the court claimed. The belief they ordered them to ignore was not climate change. But her claim that her committing a crime was excusable due to the need to draw attention to it.

    You may claim she expected jury nullification. And heck, she almost got it. But that in itself is what I mean by history. Jury nullification is so rare in the UK as to be almost non-existence. To expect it from property damage. Where the evidence is public and obvious is not realistic. It is a theoretical principle of over legal system. Not a defined expectation.

    Comparison If you speed on the motorway. You may believe it is possible you will get a ticket. But when you do it past a speed camera that flashes. You are not being honest unless you tell the wife it's probable or pretty darn certain.

    EDIT: unless you can claim someone was chasing you with a gun. Saving life has historically been an excuse for crime. But only in very direct situations.

    Interesting to consider. If she filled aircraft fuel tanks with sugar. Or the jet engine equiv. Her climate change argument might be considered an excuse. As her belief that damaging the aircraft could stop the harm would be relevant.

    Unlike damaging electronic signs, painting or historical documents.

  • A Hung Jury in the Latest Just Stop Oil Trial Shows the Nonsense of these Prosecutions

    Jump

  • The law says I must kill anyone 2 shades of white below mine.

    Ever wonder why laws like that don't exist.

    The closest we got is prejudicial reporting laws. Germany in WW2.

    But a less racist example/ Draft during the same war. Draft is the only time it has been a crime to refuse to kill. And at the time, society truly believed you had an obligation to kill for your nation. Pacifism was just seen as another word for coward.

    Many people suffered prison and other punishment. For refusing to fight during the second world war. If those people were not willing to risk prison. They would have been ignored. But because many were willing to go to prison. And be forced to work mines rather than fight and kill. (PS, My grandfather brother died in those mines.)

    Mining at that time was generally more dangerous than joining the soldiers. And according to my grandfather, he knew the risk when he refused to fight. For context ill add my grandfather was an engineer for smiths. So was in a protected profession. He made instrumentation for spitfires. I raise all this just to point out the discussions I had with him. As he considers himself to have grown from his brother's experience. He was angry that he was not able to fight during the beginning of the war. As was the case for many young men in protected professions in the first years. Learning of his brother, experience and death in forced labour. Made him realise and respect the sacrifice he and other pacifists made.

    Other options were presented late in the war. Plus more recently. Remember the recent election. And the Tories trying to reintroduce national service. If no event like pacifists going to jail during WW2 had happened. Then the Tories would not have bothered to offer so many non-military options.

    We as a society now respect the concept of pacifism because people took risk to fight for the rights not to kill. Same with mmost other modern ideals.

    Women's right to vote was won by the women willing to be jailed and beaten by police. Not the people running church coffee mornings.