> neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police.
from The Innocence Project seems carefully worded to imply that they didn't say anything that mattered, while still leaving open that they provided information that the police had, but which had not be publicly released.
> When speaking with law enforcement, the jailhouse informant provided information about the crime that was not publicly available, yet consistent with crime scene evidence and Williams’ involvement.
This is hard to fake and seems like pretty compelling evidence that the informant is telling the truth.
Basically: “What’s so innocent about having your eyes open?”
If you are somewhere where you might expect that people could see you, don’t pretend that they are supposed to not see you, or to forget what they saw. Thinking ypeopleshould have that kind of control over other people’s memories, even if stored in their stuff, seems dystopian.
There is a sharp line. If I see something, what I see isn't recorded verbatim on some shareable media somewhere, nor is that data stored in a database.
> widespread neuralink
At this time, I don't see any reason to think this is a thing that neuralink or similar will be able to accomplish anytime soon. Massive video surveillance, on the other hand, is a problem that actually exists right now.
In the example case, the earth's rotation is producing the apparent observation: it's the cause, not a separate phenomenon that happens to coincide, or that might be indicative of a deeper relationship. For something to be a coincidence, it must be otherwise unconnected causally, which is not the case if the reason you found a ~24 hour period is that you forgot to account for the earth's rotation.
I respectfully disagree (without attempting to say you're wrong!) about the definition of coincidence and the requirement of being non causally related. If I'm riding on a bus and the light poles going past line up with my music, that's a coincidence even though they are cause soley by the bus motion BPM matching an essentially random choice of song BPM.
What I'm describing is an artifact in your data that is caused by the motion of the earth.
To give a more concrete example, suppose you measuring the brightness of a trans-neptunian object, and observe that the brightness changes slightly with a period of about 1 year. You might think it has a non-uniform albedo, and a rotational period of one year, when in reality, it is just brighter when the earth is closer to it.
> Advocacy groups like Los Deliveristas Unidos, which led the fight for the pay standard, are working to keep deliveristas educated about the benefits of the minimum wage.
I think "educated" is an interesting choice of word, there, given the rest of the article.
I think much more people should be educated about the benefits of minimum wage, even here.
Some people think it only benefits the workers at the cost of everybody else. But it also benefits the market because the most inefficient companies that have business models so bad that they can't even provide minimum wage to their workers are weeded out. Also it benefits job market because workers that are not pushed to the wall financially have marginally higher chance to seek and find employment in a more efficient company than the one they are currently employed by.
> This is one of those things some people are okay with, up until the point where they get bitten by it.
> I think even you'd be upset if you started losing out on job opportunities because one of these services confused you with a convict of a similar name or address.
Wait a sec, though. I think significantly fewer people (read: almost no people) are "okay with" misinformation being reported about them, than are okay with actual information about their history being reported. There are three separate cases here: (1) accurate information regarding whether a applicant is a potentially good customer based on their history, (2) accidentally inaccurate information about that, and (3) fraudulently inaccurate information about that. The "some people" who are okay with "this" are okay with the first. If you have to lump the second and third in to drum up outrage, maybe that's a sign that the outrage is not all that appropriate.
You're making my point. In your own words, "almost no people" would be okay with misinformation be sold about them. Yet misinformation is being sold them. And all these vendors hide behind the "we don't guarantee the accuracy of this data" disclaimer.
Requiring data sold to be accurate is a type of privacy regulation. And it's one that would basically kill all of these industries because nobody can make that guarantee.
Machinery can be a lot simpler than biology. Birds are incredibly complex systems: wing structure, musculature, feathers, etc. An airplane can be a vaguely wing-shaped piece of metal and a pulse jet. It doesn’t seem super implausible that there is some algorithm that is to human consciousness what a pulse jet with wings is to a bird. Maybe LLMs are that, but maybe they’re far more than is really needed because we don’t yet know what we are doing.
I would bet against it being possible to implement consciousness on a PDP, but I wouldn’t be very confident about it.
> neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police.
from The Innocence Project seems carefully worded to imply that they didn't say anything that mattered, while still leaving open that they provided information that the police had, but which had not be publicly released.
reply