Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
Well, you get part of your wish. The article's about how they're going to stop talking and not do anything.
Worse, third-party candidates are actively counterproductive. Here is the classic short video explaining how first-past-the-post voting systems inevitably lead to a two-party state.
Speaking of being full of shit. As per that link, you're going to great lengths to cherry pick "favorable" results out of the wide variety of options that the polls covered.
Also, that link is from 16 January 2025. Trump hadn't even been inaugurated yet. Do you realize just how big a shift in Canadian (and global) opinion has been going on in the time since then? The whole point of the article this thread is attached to is mocking how Poilivere's party has lost, a result that's in large part a result of the increase in Canadian identity and patriotism that's followed in the wake of Trump's attacks once he was in office.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Beyond just a little alarming. Over 40% of the population basically said "We don't want Canada to survive the next four years" with their vote.
No, that's going way too far.
Bear in mind that although you might be focused on this election as a single-issue voter, lots of other people don't share that focus. When there's polling specifically about whether Canada should join the US the positives are in the below-10% range, comfortably into "just crazies and loons" territory. But a political party like the Conservatives have a wide range of positions and people can find them compelling in various ways. Conservative voters also want Canada to survive, they just have different opinions from you on how to accomplish that and what "survival" means.
I'm quite happy that the Conservatives didn't get into power, I think Carney is the right person to be leading Canada right now. But let's not jump to painting people we disagree with as being all a bunch of lunatic monsters.
Yeah, it'd be a three day special military operation. Just like when Russia took Ukraine.
Americans are extremely averse to casualties and pain. We could make an invasion hurt. I doubt they'd be able to endure a genuine war that genuinely enters their homeland. Not for long.
And even in the most insanely charitable world where we assume he is "trolling", he's still saying an intensely offensive thing to Canadians without any reason other than "lulz." That's the most charitable possible interpretation and it's still awful.
Of course, most Americans don't realize it's an intensely offensive thing. That's a major part of the problem.
He is not trolling. He is genuinely threatening our sovereignty, and we are taking that seriously. The United States is an enemy nation.
Something like it. I've seen other exoskeleton prototypes that were full body, intended to let operators lift heavy objects with them. A medical version would just have to be able to handle regular loads.
"There will be times when the struggle seems impossible. I know this already. Alone, unsure, dwarfed by the scale of the enemy.
Remember this, Freedom is a pure idea. It occurs spontaneously and without instruction. Random acts of insurrection are occurring constantly throughout the galaxy. There are whole armies, battalions that have no idea that they’ve already enlisted in the cause.
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
And remember this: the Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.
Remember that. And know this, the day will come when all these skirmishes and battles, these moments of defiance will have flooded the banks of the Empires’s authority and then there will be one too many. One single thing will break the siege.
Remember this: Try."
strategically America absolutely stands to benefit economically, militarily, and food security wise from annexing Canada.
Only of you pretend there are no Canadians. Once you factor in the cost of generations of hatred, terrorism, and insurgency from the people America just stabbed on the collective backs, not to mention the international reaction, maybe the old idea of paying for our resources in fair trade would have worked out better.
Because a machine is expected to do it right the first time.
No, it's not. And it doesn't have to because as I pointed out it can check its work.
You've got a mistaken impression of how AI works, and how machines in general work. They can make mistakes and can recognize and correct those mistakes. I'm a programmer, I have plenty of first hand experience. I've written code that does it myself.
So if a machine is to take over that job, it better do it right and reliable and cheaper.
Yes, that's the plan.
I've got elderly relatives and just watching them slowly, carefully trying to walk around their houses makes me so nervous. Assuming medical technology hasn't figured out how to take the edge off of age-related frailty directly, I would very much like to have something like this for protection and support were I to get into that sort of state.
And I'm optimistically thinking competition is a good sign, especially when the field has been drifting toward monopoly for years now.
My initial interest in technology like this will be its medical applications, helping frail people for example. If the technology has become good enough for recreational use then I'm sure medical versions won't be too far behind.
You said:
As long as AI does not get it 100% right every time it is not touching my house. And yes, a professional doesn't reach that rate either, but at least they know and doublecheck themselves and know how to fix things.
Well, why didn't the human professional not do it right the first time then? If it's okay for a human professional to make mistakes because they can double check and fix their mistakes, why is not okay for machines to do likewise?
The halting problem is an abstract mathematical issue, in actual real-world scenarios it's trivial to handle cases where you don't know how long the process will run. Just add a check to watch for the process running too long and break into some kind of handler when that happens.
I'm a professional programmer, I deal with this kind of thing all the time. I've literally written applications using LLMs that do this.
Where do I say anything about "offing" the board? That's rather a leap. I'm talking about the US government attacking the corporate structure of Wikipedia, which isn't paranoia because this article is literally about exactly that.
The term "artificial intelligence" has been in use since the 1950s and it encompasses a wide range of fields in computer science. Machine learning is most definitely included under that umbrella.
Why do you think an AI can't double check things and fix them when it notices problems? It's a fairly straightforward process.