I agree with your last sentence, but on the subject of positive portrayals of US armed forces, the studios actually have an incentive to play nice. The DoD will let film productions use real equipment and personal, but only after vetting the script and making changes as they see fit.
I really wish we had details here too, but someone made a good point:
"Hey, you need a PDF viewer with scripts enabled for the digital signing.. can you install Adobe XXX?" would be a good line to get the mark to use a less-than-secure PDF viewer.
But also, since it was the North Korea hacking group, I'm not ruling out a 0-day... hopefully more details will come at some point.
Emojis? For the current weather, a single emoji could convey quite a lot; e.g. a snowflake for sub-60 weather (I have a low tolerance for cold), a sun for 60-80, fire emoji for 80+...
Now, I don't know if anyone truly needs the weather in their terminal prompt, but it is doable.
This logic kind of fails quickly. I bet you wouldn't use it to show that Tiananmen Square did not happen, by showing all Chinese Search Engine are in apparent agreement on it not happening.
Well, no, which is why I threw in Kagi and Yandex as well. I can imagine Google and Microsoft altering rankings for certain results for political reasons, but Kagi seems too small to care about that, and Yandex isn't operating from the same political playbook as western corporations.
Now, in defense of your theory, I did double check Kagi and found out that they use Bing and Google for some queries, so the only truly "untainted" one is Yandex, which doesn't have ADL on the first page, or the next five that I checked.
That said, as I mentioned they do surface SPLC, which is similar in tone and content.
Limited sample size, but I think it's still plausible that ADL is an organic result.
I also checked Yahoo, and it has ADL as the third result.
I checked Baidu and Naver, and didn't see ADL, but I assume they're prioritizing regional content.
Does it often happen to you that you talk about Ai and, three minutes later, find yourself arguing with every search machine on the planet that it’s impossible that someone would say nasty things about your favorite fascist?
Guess it depends on the "algorithm" but if we were still in the PageRank era there's no way in hell ADL or SLPC would be anywhere near the top results for "Alex Jones", considering how many other news stories, blogs, comments, etc. about him exist.
The PageRank era ended almost immediately. Google has had a large editorial team for a long, long time (probably before they were profitable).
It turns out PageRank aways kind of sucked. However, it was competing with sites that did “pay for placement” for the first page or two, so it only had to be better than “maliciously bad”.
I see comments like this all the time on these sorts of articles, and I have two criticisms:
First, although "AI exhibits racial bias due to biased training data" is far more accurate, I think it's perfectly acceptable to condense that to "AI is racist". Especially in the headline of an article that goes on to explain the issue in detail.
Second, I would say that even racist humans are racist because of bad training data, so if we're fine calling people racist, why not AI?
> Look at how uncomfortable they are with such an innocuous request.
Ah, but it's not innocuous, and everyone knows it. I assume you know it -- when you watched that clip of the senator, did you really think he had forgotten what the definition of "woman" was?
The question he was really asking was along the lines of "is it the health department's official stance that trans woman are woman and should be treated as such under the law?"
Although actually he wasn't really asking that either, he was signaling to his supporters that he does not think that trans woman are women, and he was attempting to embarrass his political opposition so he and his allies could talk about the lunacy of the woke left or whatever and how they can't even define what a woman is.
I can forgive people for not wanting to play along.
Although, I can't forgive people for not having an answer ready; that question is being used as a "gotcha" more and more frequently.
When I Google it, the first result is... your post, and none of the other results include the word.
Adding quotes to "badass" turns up (on the first page) a mechanics job posted in January, four hits for the same CNA job from over a month ago, and one hit for an administrative job, posted this month.
That doesn't seem like a lot of postings, certainly not enough to be considered an outlier.
Of course to verify that I'd have to do fifty Google searches and chart the data, which I don't really want to do...
I think you should, though, so next time you make such a dubious claim, you have the data to back it up. :)
> When critics diverge so far from the role of answering the question "what's a movie I would enjoy" then no, they're not doing their job.
There's no critic that can predict what you'll like, since tastes in films differ so much.
I have a friend I don't discuss movies with much, because we disagree on pretty much every single one we've both seen; it's literally impossible for a single critic to directly tell us both what we'd like.
Critics can most certainly put themselves in the position of relating to common folks, and that was a big part of what Siskel and Ebert both did.
Just cause someone might not know my specific tastes isn't a reason that everyone should have to be recommended videos that most people will predictably not enjoy.
That's like saying since there's no way I'd know what music you might like, then you should listen to King Crimson since it's highly respected in prog Rock circles. Yes, sure, and most people would hate it.
For example, the Transformers movies: https://www.wired.com/2008/12/pentagon-holl-1/
The general concept: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-entertainment_compl...