I don’t think that’s wrong, but from the other direction.
They’re both tools, and as long as you’re open about what it actually means to use the tool and what you actually did I don’t see an issue.

Sometimes 3D printing is as creative as printing someone else’s design. Sometimes the creativity is a modeling and design problem. Sometimes it’s a machine operation skill.

AI tools can be “write a book” or “draw me a cat”, which isn’t much , or it could used to do spot touch ups in a photo, or get feedback on a written work.

Doing something with or without different tools has different advantages and disadvantages, and changes the criteria that you judge it by.
Some people feel the same way about digital cameras or cell phone cameras. I don’t think the device picking the exposure time and white balance makes it not your picture, it just means I’m not being impressed by your color pallet, but instead your subject and composition.

To me that’s the least annoying part of AI at the moment. I’m open to the notion that you can be creative with tools that remove parts of the challenge, you just don’t get credit for the challenge.

At my local store they seem to comfortably replace 1 cashier with four quick self checkouts, and 3-4 with 2 rows of 6-8.

People dislike them, but it gets a little silly when they insist they have lower throughput too.

I believe the distinction is usually criminal vs non criminal charges usually. Most criminal things require you to have intended to do the bad thing. That doesn’t mean that you intended the outcome, just the act that caused it.
If you intentionally kill someone: murder. If you intentionally attack someone and they die: a lesser type of murder. If you deliberately decide to not maintain some tall thing and it falls and kills someone: negligent manslaughter.
If you’re on a construction site using a nail gun and you follow your training and check what’s behind stuff and put up rope to keep people out of where you can’t see and a nail misses a stud and hits someone killing them: tragic accident. You didn’t intentionally do anything wrong.

For civil things they can often just argue that you caused harm, so you’re responsible for some portion of it. That usually doesn’t apply to retail theft because “left with paper towel unpaid, we stopped them and took back the paper towel” doesn’t actually have any harm. There’s nothing to fix.

While there’s definitely dick baggery in retail theft prevention and store security, I have my doubts that the people complaining here about it at the self checkout are actually the victims of it.

Yup, that’s the precedent bit I mentioned. They’re both valid ways of deciding ambiguity (a judge decides in this situation and other judges aren’t obligated to decide the same way, or lawyers debate the ambiguity, a jury decides, and courts strive for consistency), but they’re fundamentally different and slightly bewildering to people from the other model.

Purely an answer to the question "I mean, how different could they really be?”: fundamentally different in an almost unrecognizable way.

I don’t know how the German appeals system works, but there is a lot of room for difference.

A particular reading spree once caused me to learn that the UK, a modern civilized country, didn’t have what we would call a supreme court until 2009.
Their laws aren’t codified. We have a big book o’ laws, and we pass bills that modify the book. If it’s not in the book it’s not a law. They pass bills that are the laws. This sounds really similar until you consider that “the law” is a collection of every act of parliament going back nearly a thousand years, many of which cancel out others. Oh, and that extends to the concept of a “constitution”.

Some quick searching shows that Germany uses a fundamentally different legal model that views our big book o’ laws as unstructured because courts have a binding say in interpretation of the law. It seems that this regional court can be appealed, and also that their courts don’t use precedent like ours do, so an appeal is more like a second opinion than an escalation.
Judges are less referee and more investigator, so you can claim that the judge made a mistake with their decision, which is appeal.

What? That doesn’t even make sense. Being shitty makes you shitty, not thinking it’s shitty to be shitty.

You’re essentially sweeping all negative behavior under the rug of “confusion”.
Yes, he was wrong. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t also shitty.

If I recall correctly, they think he was wise, and that he brought a message from God that superceded the old rules, but that he wasn’t the son of God or a part of some divine Trinity.
They then believe that Mohammed was likewise a messenger who brought a new set of rules that obsoleted the ones Jesus brought.

So if I recall correctly, Judaism is to Christianity as Christianity is to Islam. It’s just disagreement over which PR to accept.

“Just” seems a weak word to use for the scope of the conflict, but I think that’s the heart of it.

Yes, I will just take your word for it over the word of the original people involved.

You keep talking about DARPA, when they’re not the same organization that backed ARPANET. Arpanet came before laws were passed saying DARPA could only fund projects directly related to defense.

DARPA was originally ARPA. They were under the department of defense but their project scope wasn’t limited to defense projects. The reorganization that rebranded the agency as DARPA and made it defense focused ostensibly saw the non-defense oriented moonshot project responsibility transfer to the NSF, although the funding shift wasn’t proportional.
The order of creation isn’t exactly relevant to how responsibilities have shifted.

It’s kinda like how, for the longest time, presidential security was handled by the Treasury department. It wasn’t because presidential security was considered a financial matter, but because that’s where it fit.

https://www.darpa.mil/news/features/arpanet

Secure communications and information-sharing between geographically dispersed research facilities were among the ARPANET’s original goals.

From your link to the arpanet wiki:

Building on the ideas of J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Taylor initiated the ARPANET project in 1966 to enable resource sharing between remote computers.

Sutherland and Taylor continued their interest in creating the network, in part, to allow ARPA-sponsored researchers at various corporate and academic locales to utilize computers provided by ARPA, and, in part, to quickly distribute new software and other computer science results.

There’s a big difference between ARPA funded labs and general university usage.

I’m not sure why it would matter that you worked for them in the early 90s. That doesn’t exactly give you a privileged insight into the creation of ARPANET.

100%. And a livable wage based on where you live. The cost of living in some regions is way higher than in others and you can’t just say that low income people should have the longest commutes, or spend the most to move to someplace with lower cost of living.

I’d also be in favor of a negative tax bracket. Something that adjusts below poverty income to above poverty. If done right everyone would see some benefit as the system adjusts everyone’s income <= $40,000 up to $45,000 or something via refundable tax credit or some such. Make over $40k and you taxes go down $5k. Make $40k or below and you pay no taxes and get a refund of however much less than $40k you made + $5k.

Corporations should pay more taxes, but since people are talking about how it all works in reality:

Not all corporate expenses are tax deductible, and people are able to deduct a fair amount from their income when calculating their taxes.
Additionally, individuals are taxed on a progressive scale where anything up to ~$15,000 isn’t taxed. That number should be much higher to actually reflect cost of living, but you’re still paying less to account for cost of living.

With $60,000 in income your taxable income is $44,000 after the standard deduction , and then you only pay taxes on about $30,000 of that because of the bracketing.

The Internet that you’re posting on was built on top of a military network intended to provide redundant communication in the event of a global thermonuclear war.

Responding to this part alone: that’s not actually true.
The intent of arpanet, the direct predecessor to the Internet, was to make it easier for universities to use high powered computer resources located at national laboratories, as well as making it easier to distribute software updates. The person who initially pushed for it’s creation wanted “an electronic commons open to all, 'the main and essential medium of informational interaction for governments, institutions, corporations, and individuals '”. They secured funding for the initial computer science labratories, os research that underpin everything, and the foundation for the “INTERgalactic NETwork”.

Arpa was, at the time, the advanced research project agency. They were under the DoD, but they filled a role closer to the NSF today.

In designing the system they referenced work done by people who were studying robust communication networks. At the time that meant the phone system and nuclear weapons. The research, however, was applicable to any unstable network, and so had particular interest to them because computers had terrible reliability and they wanted to not have to call people if they discovered they had turned off a computer halfway between New York and LA.

The closest thing it has to a cold war military objective is to help us win the research race and spite the Soviets. It can withstand a nuclear attack, but that’s just because that’s the easiest way to make it survive a farmer with a backhoe accidentally hitting a wire.

The thing is they’re currently trying to sell as a business oriented tool. They’re not going to make money off of individuals.
Google is positioned to come closest because they’re already an advertising company.

If you think their focus isn’t businesses then you’re not paying attention to their strategy. The pressure to drive profitability is increasing as their business customers are reporting that investment in AI capabilities isn’t converting into measurable financial returns. That’s the type of news that makes investors wary.

If you operate at a loss, you need to be providing a value to your customers that you can leverage. You need more than high interest, you also need demonstrable utility.

There have also been plenty of times that a new technology just … Didn’t pan out. This specifically happens with AI technology, and we even have a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter The tech won’t go away, it’ll just be market infeasible for a while until it’s no longer called AI and is just a feature in some other product.

Take your comment and apply it to someone marketing “spell check as a service”.

This is capitalism working exactly as intended. People with capital are using it to guide businesses to make them more money.

The mistake is thinking that capitalism is motivated by a healthy economy, when the theory is that if everyone is aggressively selfish then the economy will naturally become healthy and efficient.

The people making money are counting on making their money as investors keep pumping more in. The investors are all aiming to be the last one to sell before the crash. Russian roulette venture capitalism. (In some cases they think the economy will tolerate 1-2 companies and they’re aiming to buy a controlling interest in a company worth 2% current value after the correction, and in others they just have so much money that a few billion is a minor bet - BlackRock comes to mind, with more than $10 trillion to invest)

If you look at 2008, we had a similar-ish situation with a major portion of the economy being invested in mortgage based investments.

We had premature twins with some common, usually benign side effects. The “emergency C-section” and “dual booking in the NICU for a month” was just a whole thing.

If it weren’t for having good insurance it would have been financially unrecoverable.

When two people love each other very much, they can decide they want to go to a series of various doctors appointments where the mommy gets given new and exciting risk factors and complications and the other desperately tries to keep track of the paperwork.
Then they have one final expensive doctors appointment and take home their brand new legal liability and tax exception, get ready for all of their new doctors appointments where everyone tries to sort the paperwork, skip sleeping for the next 6-36 months.
Thanks to evolutionary trickery they will ultimately rate this experience quite highly, on average.

The secret is that it was filmed on film and the originals were still around. So they were able to just reprocess the original film with higher resolution and such.
Other shows were either digital, or filmed on film but the only thing saved was the broadcast transfer.

It’s typically considered bad form to tell someone to Google your point for you instead of actually explaining your point yourself.
You’re clearly trying to convince people of something. Actually do that instead of telling people keywords that mean something to you.

They run a car into something that only crunches a corner. Simulates a tree, telephone pole, or guard rail collision.
Uneven force application is much harder to safely accommodate, and it’s also a more representative crash test, since more crashes happen in that manner than full width head-on collisions.

That’s pretty fair. I know the cameras can be more effective, particularly in situations where the driver may be using lane centering or something, but I’m not sure I could be fully comfortable regardless.