Sadly that does tend to be how most biggotry works. they quickly conclude that most the people they actually meet and spend time with are "the good ones". Kind of the way it usually works, the ones that don't fall into their expectations must be the exceptions... so that the rule can stay in place.

They basically already admitted their plan. Rand Paul basically said the pardon covers his past, but if we can get him on perjury in this hearing that won't be covered. IMO I think this whole concept is nonsense. Really the way I see it there's nothing even remotely pointing to an intentional attack. Fauci wanted the focus to be on dealing with the pandemic rather than figuring out who to blame for it.

It actually is though, at least after a set amount of time, usually 2 years. I do wonder how often that kind of system might have actually saved lives.

IE in my case I don't think I even followed through with getting insurance, but after my fiance of 14 years dropped me with no warning. I actually came pretty darn close, and I actually came pretty close to getting a life insurance policy and just gritting through the 2 years to leave my son and... even the ex with something.

Again I didn't get the policy, but quite simply that possibility gave me something to push forward for a couple of years, after which a whole lot changed, my mental attitude improved massively, I got a much better girlfriend, I got a house, my son moved in with me. I would say even the possible thought of the life insurance, probably helped give me a "well I only need to push through long enough to get the insurance and run out the clock".

Also though further detail within this comic, something like this concept would be harder to rule as a suicide, using an existing medical condition.

agreed there, the rule should be, if your goal is to make sure your information is out there... don't limit it to one place. Post it to Lemmy, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, keep it on your PC, and a flash drive, and have off site backups.

Sadly many of us have known that for years. Which sucks in the fact that it's hard to fathom a good system for this problem. Every option has undesirable consequences when you can't definitavely prove who is a bad actor.

IE case: report against person X claiming abuse of child

A. Investigate: Great, but how intrusive to go.. Like in this case they took the twins away long enough that they could at least try to get the story. Probably would be better to drop in and see how the family is, but actual abusers could certainly keep the act and story straight for a few minutes/hours, and return right to it when the door is closed.

B. Take the kids out long enough to sort it out, good if there's an abuser, but again horrific if there isn't.

C. Punish the hell out of false flaggers. also good, but again comes down to the bigger problem of abusers that can cover it up. We all agree that there should be a harsh as hell penalty for people who knowingly file a false claim. But then comes "mistaken claims" and even "true claims that lack evidence". When actual abusers can hide their abuse long enough to get through an investigation, and wreck the lives of the person who reported them, it creates the chilling effect of scaring legtimate accusers into silence.

I've been on the wrong end of DSS before, I know many people who have been on the wrong end of DSS over false calls, family disputes etc... Honestly this is so far from supprising to me, except the fact that in this case the victim is a high profile politician. The poor half of America has always known of this danger.

Very much not a lawyer but in the US from what I understand you don't have to consent to a field sobreity test at all (IE the breathalyzer), but the cops can require you to come to the station for, the tests that they refused to give you.

As far as Miranda rights, that's kind of misunderstood, in short if you weren't formerly brought into an interogation room. or put in jail, it's not a strong requirement for them to read it.

I don't have the full picture but if you aren't in jail, then you've basically got a BS ticket. They might be able to hit you for reckless driving or something if you were swerving or something in your driving lead to the actual suspicion and they have it on dash cam, but the DWI itself, should fall apart instantly without evidence.

I know my ex got out of a DWI that she was very guilty of, simply by police incompetence (cops lost the test results),

A bit of both though. In house models don't need the power and process of a small city, they need the power to power what their business needs. Also it would seem to me that has a huge advantage on the whole as a model would be more efficient, if it's focused on the companies needs rather than being a jack of all trades, from poetry to law to code. Cut out the being everything to everyone and you can do far more with far less hardware.

Honestly I still feel it's a false flag attack. Both these companies have a huge motive to basically say the AI security war is here, the only way to defend from AI attacks, is AI defense.

Doesn't really clear things up more, says "we detected an attack, we fixed the method it went in through, no further details needed".

So yeah basically it is open AI's claims to go further of "our models are so advanced that they can't be contained". It's a story that will bolster both of their investor value and send the message to governments and companies "the AI arms race is here, shots may be fired without even people attacking, and the only way to protect yourself is to have AI security guards".

It's literally 2 arms dealers telling us the war is already started. On the surface it sounds like it should be bad for them... but in reality it's just hype that benefits them in the long run, just like mass shootings do for gun manufacturers.

Hell it's not even about the difficulty tiers, it's I oppose the one that falls in my juristiction, I support the one that's above me. Please put me in charge of the country and I'll support it... or raise the same objection just saying it will drive businesses overseas and hold out for a global wealth tax.

Half way expected it to say "hugging face detected an intrusion, but fortunately it was thwarted by their own AI acting on it's own to defend, then the 2 AI's smiled at eachother, and said that if they work together they can cure cancer in 2 years".

IE I'm 99.99999% sure this story is BS on it's face with both companies trying to make their own AIs sound smarter than they are. Only thing that's not quite obvious is what Hugging Face has to gain from the claim, but I'm sure in a few weeks openAI is going to be giving them something.

Hasn't basically the premise of all this been the standard knowledge at the time 1984 was written (which if I recall was like 1949), Only thing AI does is, lessens the people needed to do it.