It's already fairly easy to pump out 2D and 3D generated images, without using "AI" to do so, but there is still a large demand for real people doing real things. That isn't going to go away.
Again, Mintpress News support the state-capitalist authoritarian regimes of Russia and China, whilst claiming to be left wing.
They frequently parrot state propaganda, including lies about Russia's invasions of Ukraine, the Syrian civil war, and assorted George Soros nonsense.
Their funding is not transparent, and like Grey Zone frequently publish stories from contributors who appear on RT and Sputnik, such as Vanessa Beeley.
My work is organized around a simple mission: to challenge and then overthrow the left-wing ideological regime that has dominated American life for a generation.
During the 1970s and 1980s, conservative intellectuals started a revolution, pioneering free-market economics and successfully implementing those ideas during the Reagan boom. Today, however, we are faced with a new challenge: to defeat an ascendant activist class that has sabotaged America’s institutions with a toxic combination of socialist economics, cultural chaos, and identity politics.
It was alright, not the best but I appreciate the encouragement.
I get where you're coming from, but I'd suggest a slightly alternative view.
While the sentiment may not be the same as if it came from a friend you'd not spoken to recently, etc, I would assume that when you're walking past a random person on the street, and someone asked you how you hoped that random person was, you'd probably be on the "well" end of the spectrum than the "not well".
In that sense, I don't think it's strictly correct to say the statement is disingenuous, but maybe more insincere. It's not a lie, or false, but the person writing it isn't expecting an answer of "well no actually my cat just died", nor in most situations would they take on the task of solving whatever ails the recipient.
So the view I'm suggesting is that while it may not be absolutely sincere, there is truth to the wish in a basic sense.
A good example of this is how British people greet each other with "alright?". It's just another way of saying hello, no one (outside your friends, and even then) are actually asking you to detail how you are. The expected response is "yeah, you?" and anything else really confuses people. It's like answering a knock knock joke with "fuck off" rather than "whose there?".
Does it make sense? No, not really, and it's particularly confusing for Americans because "are you alright?" is a phrase only used when you're seriously concerned about someone's wellbeing, which gets rather amusing when it's being used as a platitude.
Ultimately, I'd say it's better that humans relate in ways which are intended to be positive, rather than neutral (where we may end up dehumanising each other by acting like we are robots), or negative way (by being antagonising).
You don't have to agree, but I do think that it's a pretty innocuous thing.
Dear First is actually a spam filter I have, it's made my life much better by ditching so many utterly useless recruiters.
"Annoying as fuck" indicates a high level of annoyance and/or frustration. My point is that if 7 words in the opening line of an email (which are trivially easy to skip or ignore) create that level of annoyance then something isn't right.
I absolutely agree that people who are overly verbose, who step around the point they are making with flowery language, and use a thousand words when a few will do can make it considerably harder to extract a clear meaning, purpose, or instruction from that peice of communication.
But that isn't what Op started with. Op said the opening line is what was annoying as fuck. That is what I was challenging them on.
Using ML to research potentially more efficient, in a BigO sense, packing algorithms makes sense.
But that isn't what they are doing.
They are using image recognition and text analysis to identify the product being packed, and then adjusting the packaging requirements, e.g. more protection = greater volume.
The point I'm making is that they already know what the item is, because inventory codes, so doing visual checks is pointless. They should already know the packing instructions for fragile, etc, items as these are provided by the manufacturer and have already been proven valid by virtue of the product leaving the factory and getting to the Amazon warehouse.
If amazon are ignoring those instructions - and it sounds like they are - then that is a problem they are creating for themselves.
Fitting the items in to the box is still the same problem domain as is taught to first year CompSci students, and is NP-complete. First Fit is extremely efficient when dealing with a relatively small number of items, while optimal solutions are NP-hard, the performance first fit is O(n log n) so not great but not terrible either. Given the myriad combination of item and box size, I'd expect there is a decent amount of triage which can be done and identify "easy to pack" orders (1 or 2 items, no special requirements) which would be essentially a table lookup with O(1) performance.
There are many better algorithms than first fit, I'm just using that as a single example because the point is the same across all of them.
You clearly have no idea what the luddites actually stood for.