The OSM community has had extremely clear rules around automated edits for most of its existence. Every experienced mapper has seen first-hand the sorts of problems they can cause. The fact that it's using AI in this instance does not give any sort of exception to these rules. To emphasize, there are already AI-assisted tools that are allowed,[0] this isn't a blanket application of "no AI ever," it's about doing so properly with the right community vetting.
Edit to add: To be clear, they have since taken steps to try to resolve the concerns in question, the discussion is ongoing. I suspect at the end of this we will get a useful tool, it's just off to a rocky start.
There are certainly plenty of areas in Mexico that are dangerous (typically along the US border and drug routes), but it's not as though everywhere in the country is more dangerous than everywhere in the US. E.g., I've been to academic conferences in plenty of US cities that rank among the most dangerous in the world (Baltimore, Oakland, Philly, etc.), [0] as well as Mexico City, which decidedly does not rank among the most dangerous -- let alone the resort destinations. The reality is, "family on vacation murdered in cartel territory" is going to draw a lot more media attention than "family on vacation robbed in New Orleans" or "overwhelming majority of families have perfectly safe vacations". You can't judge by sensationalist articles how safe a place actually is, let alone an entire nation the size of Mexico.
I want to set aside for the moment the fact that the land-owning class was English (and not Irish) -speaking and usually lived in England, because while that's the easier point to make, there's a more fundamental issue here that I think is important, and would be true regardless of whether the ruling class was Irish or English: What was the mechanism that allowed the ruling class to do this? They clearly didn't have the support of the Irish people; absolutely everyone who starved would have obviously preferred a system where they could eat the food they were growing, so why didn't they just do that? Where was the monopoly on violence, which prevented these farmers from eating, based out of? The framing of "the British didn't cause it, they just didn't do anything to help" ignores the glaring fact that "not doing anything" would have meant "not enforcing their colonial power", when they most certainly did actively maintain their control, and it was precisely that control that enabled this to both happen and to continue. Were they trying to kill the Irish? No, but if you could solve a problem like a famine by simply ceasing to enforce a certain set of laws, but you continue to do so anyway, you are very obviously still responsible. If a school bully threatens violence to make sure his lackeys can sell your lunch, and he says "The lackeys are in charge, you should have brought more if you wanted to keep some," that doesn't mean he's not the one making you go hungry.
The majority of the Linux kernel's source code is device drivers. The overwhelming majority of that is not included in the kernel image by default, but instead made available as kernel modules you can enable as needed. E.g., your thermostat probably doesn't need support for an obscure game controller, so doesn't have those drivers, but it could if you were so inclined.
The NRL originally developed onion routing and Tor. It was then open sourced, stewarded by the EFF for a few years, before becoming its own non-profit. The NRL still do a ton of work on Tor and its ecosystem, primarily through academic research and occasionally code, though the Tor Project is obviously now the biggest player in the space. The original motivation was to enable communicating with covert assets (intelligence services and the like) overseas, which requires lots of non-military cover traffic to be useful, hence the opening up. Its popularity as an anti-censorship tool has motivated a lot of the continued support from various US agencies, including the NRL. Really though, the NRL is a largely civilian institution, and while the people who work there do work for the military, they aren't typically enlisted, have limited security clearance if any, etc. It's sort of like the Navy's version of Microsoft Research, or Bell Labs.
Creationists don't argue things are generically "too complicated", they argue that there are structures in nature that aren't discoverable by progressive mutations. As Dawkins explains in the video, eyes are an extremely commonly cited example. I've never heard anyone argue that cells couldn't evolve photosensitivity, but I have heard plenty of people argue that eyes only work when they're fully functional, which is what Dawkins is explaining as untrue here (as is TFA). I don't find the idea of debating creationism especially likely to be fruitful overall, but answering the question "How does evolution explain the structure of eyes?", e.g., for an adolescent who is grew up in a fundamentalist household, seems entirely reasonable to address.
I've also heard that it's popular as a literal cash-heavy business. This allows it to be used for manipulating tax filings, in both directions: laundering other income, or under-reporting profits.
That's my understanding as well. The thing I was wondering as I read it: how difficult would it be for someone to make an extension or fork of Rust that allows annotating sufficient type information to prove these kinds of invariants, like F*?
That's not really a comparable narrative arc though. Breaking Bad is a character drama, not a mystery box structure. With only some limited exceptions, which clearly were planned out in advance of their resolution, the driving question of Breaking Bad is "what are the characters going to do", not "why/how did that thing happen".
It's not that the headline is "more accurate" than the story, it's that the headline is accurate and reflects the content of the article. If you look at the second paragraph of the article, as well as the source it provides[0], they all agree the "asteroid" was deleted from records: "EDITORIAL NOTICE: DELETION OF 2018 CN41". It was not reclassified or corrected, it was deleted, because it was not an asteroid and so does not belong in the list of designated asteroids. It just also happens to already be tracked elsewhere.
Maybe in the broadest sense, but it's certainly not more accurate to say that. If I hold a fiction writing competition, and you submit a piece of non-fiction that I throw in a paper shredder, I think most would agree that I would be misleading if I said I "corrected" your writing. "Deleted" would be a better description, regardless of whether the same work had been submitted elsewhere before.
[0] Most notably: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rapid
Edit to add: To be clear, they have since taken steps to try to resolve the concerns in question, the discussion is ongoing. I suspect at the end of this we will get a useful tool, it's just off to a rocky start.
reply