I completely agree.
For all the people who say this is being pedantic, how would you feel if most of the paragraphs use the phrase "should of" instead of "should have"? Would you say that this is okay since so many people use this phrase on Facebook and language is changing?
Here's my own example of how Google AI is now getting it wrong:
I asked Google which Transformer turned into a 747 aircraft. The AI answer was Jetfire, with a 4 paragraph explanation about it. Yet I know that Jetfire absolutely does not turn into a 747 AND that the photo next to the paragraphs was not a 747.
What happened to a direct link to Wikipedia or a Transformers Wikipedia, which both have the correct description and history of the character?
I reported the result as infactual, but I wonder how many people will think this is correct information?
By that, I mean, how come these lawyers never face any recourse, for filing obvious, frivolous and stupid charges?
Would these lawyers be so loyal to Trump and so quick to file these cases if there was any risk that a judge would disbar them? Maybe it would take a few lawyers losing their license to understand that they should not blindly follow whatever Trump says.
Just as a point of clarity, both Fox News and radio stations are't network TV stations, so they follow different rules and can't be directly compared to ABC.
First, if the leaked tax returns are accurate, then how did he claim that he lost do much money running his businesses? Doesn't this make him an especially poor businessman?
Second, nobody likes taxes, but we have to pay them as part of living in the United States. In turn, our taxes help support public services like schools, police and road repair.
So if Trump claimed he didn't have to pay tens of millions of dollars in taxes, then that means those tens of millions of dollars didn't help pay for public services.
Yet he thinks it's smart to have cheated all of the public services out of all this money.
Let's assume for a minute that Trump is right and there was widespread fraud and he actually won the election.
According to the constitution, no one can be elected to the position of president more than twice. This means that if he won the 2020 election, he wasn't eligible to run in 2024.
Surely some election lawyer on his team knows this, but like always, this is performative BS to keep the base fired up and angry about something.
And it's one more issue that shows how spineless the rest of the government checks and balances have become.
Like 1930's Germany, politicians have a choice:
Speak up against Trump and stop a potential world war 3.
Or say nothing, keep the job, keep the steady paycheck, and keep the steady health insurance.
Unfortunately, the choice too many people have made is; "Now's not a good time to be unemployed and without a paycheck. The wife is pregnant and we need the health insurance and the kids want a nice Playstation for Christmas."
I'll take that bet: it's not going to happen.
Even if the elections go as planned without Republican interference and complaining about how it was rigged.
Even if Democrats win and Republicans don't dispute the election and try to stay in power.
Then enough of Congress has to grow a spine and stand up to Trump.
Then the impeachment bill has to get through the Hosue.
Then the impeachment bill has to taken up by the Senate.
And then the Senate has to vote to remove him from office.
I give this process less than a 5% chance of happening.
This is a good point and I wonder what it will take for Texans to realize just how much money Paxton is wasting on these lawsuits. Or do most Texans not care because they actually appreciate the performative "sticking it to the libs"?
So Trump is upset that the BBC showed a documentary in the United Kingdom more than a year ago, and now he's going to sue for billions of dollars?
Is he really going to sue the BBC in the United Kingdom? Does he have lawyers that are familiar with British law?
Though like with his other lawsuits, I'm sure he has no case whatsoever and he's hoping they will settle with him for a few million dollars. After all, ABC and CBS settled with him, so why can't he bully other networks?
Or how about disbarring the lawyers for bringing cases like this to court?
Yes, I know lawyers are almost obligated to file any cases their clients want, but at some point they should realize these companies have logos that are completely different.
In turn, this means copyright lawyers are taking money from the client knowing there's no case.
Maybe I'm old, but I just can't get over the phrase, "your fridge will miss out on software updates", like it's running Windows.
Again, I may be old, but I want my fridge to keep things cool, so why does it need software that needs to be updated? Why does it need software at all?
This statement needs to be shared more often. People should understand that Fox News actually admitted to being entertainment and opinion under oath in court when they were sued. Yet people still watch them thinking they're actually delivering news.
Let's get it out of the way that murdering people without a trial or even accusing them of a crime is horrible.
But I've watched enough police shows to know thst you NEVER kill the guy transporting the drugs since he's a small fish. Instead, you arrest him and interrogate him to lead you to the big fish.
Where's the US navy or Coast Guard? Why aren't they scooping up these "drug runners", arresting them, and learning who's supplying the drugs?
Oh, right, Trump doesn't care and he just wants to kill people. Today, it's "drug runners" and tomorrow it'll be political enemies.
We also live in a world where way too many politicians play the game of "my side good, your side bad".
Using your example, a Democrat could try to ban child marriage and many Republicans would oppose it (and vote FOR child marriage) just because it's something the Democrats want.
Back when I had a land line, I got a device called a Telezapper, which promised to reduce robo calls.
It worked by sending the "number is disconnected" tones when you picked up the phone. The robocaller machine on the other end would hear the tones and mark your number as disconnected. Then in time, your number would be spread to other databases as disconnected, and the robo calls would stop.
Why is there not a similar technology for call phones?
But keep in mind that $24 million to Google is like $5 traffic ticket to you and me.
And would you pay the $5 to be done with the problem or fight it and go to court? Yes, the right thing to do is fight it, but still.
Trump: Democrats are domestic terrorists that should be round up and beaten and deported.
Also Trump: we need to pass a budget to fund the government. Why won't the Democrats work with us? They're being so unfair.
I completely agree. For all the people who say this is being pedantic, how would you feel if most of the paragraphs use the phrase "should of" instead of "should have"? Would you say that this is okay since so many people use this phrase on Facebook and language is changing?
Google AI doesn't know Transformers
Here's my own example of how Google AI is now getting it wrong: I asked Google which Transformer turned into a 747 aircraft. The AI answer was Jetfire, with a 4 paragraph explanation about it. Yet I know that Jetfire absolutely does not turn into a 747 AND that the photo next to the paragraphs was not a 747. What happened to a direct link to Wikipedia or a Transformers Wikipedia, which both have the correct description and history of the character? I reported the result as infactual, but I wonder how many people will think this is correct information?
As the article mentions, the collection could be worth as low as $60K. So the company is risking its entire reputation on $60K to $200K.
Why do these lawyers not face any recourse?
By that, I mean, how come these lawyers never face any recourse, for filing obvious, frivolous and stupid charges? Would these lawyers be so loyal to Trump and so quick to file these cases if there was any risk that a judge would disbar them? Maybe it would take a few lawyers losing their license to understand that they should not blindly follow whatever Trump says.
Fox News isn't broadcast TV
Just as a point of clarity, both Fox News and radio stations are't network TV stations, so they follow different rules and can't be directly compared to ABC.
Trump's tax issue is bad on multiple levels
First, if the leaked tax returns are accurate, then how did he claim that he lost do much money running his businesses? Doesn't this make him an especially poor businessman? Second, nobody likes taxes, but we have to pay them as part of living in the United States. In turn, our taxes help support public services like schools, police and road repair. So if Trump claimed he didn't have to pay tens of millions of dollars in taxes, then that means those tens of millions of dollars didn't help pay for public services. Yet he thinks it's smart to have cheated all of the public services out of all this money.
What happens if Trump won
Let's assume for a minute that Trump is right and there was widespread fraud and he actually won the election. According to the constitution, no one can be elected to the position of president more than twice. This means that if he won the 2020 election, he wasn't eligible to run in 2024. Surely some election lawyer on his team knows this, but like always, this is performative BS to keep the base fired up and angry about something. And it's one more issue that shows how spineless the rest of the government checks and balances have become.
Actually, when nothing is found, they'll claim there's a cover up because those mean and nasty Democrats are hiding the real evidence.
Banality of evil
Like 1930's Germany, politicians have a choice: Speak up against Trump and stop a potential world war 3. Or say nothing, keep the job, keep the steady paycheck, and keep the steady health insurance. Unfortunately, the choice too many people have made is; "Now's not a good time to be unemployed and without a paycheck. The wife is pregnant and we need the health insurance and the kids want a nice Playstation for Christmas."
I'll take that bet: it's not going to happen. Even if the elections go as planned without Republican interference and complaining about how it was rigged. Even if Democrats win and Republicans don't dispute the election and try to stay in power. Then enough of Congress has to grow a spine and stand up to Trump. Then the impeachment bill has to get through the Hosue. Then the impeachment bill has to taken up by the Senate. And then the Senate has to vote to remove him from office. I give this process less than a 5% chance of happening.
This is a good point and I wonder what it will take for Texans to realize just how much money Paxton is wasting on these lawsuits. Or do most Texans not care because they actually appreciate the performative "sticking it to the libs"?
How does he have standing to sue?
So Trump is upset that the BBC showed a documentary in the United Kingdom more than a year ago, and now he's going to sue for billions of dollars? Is he really going to sue the BBC in the United Kingdom? Does he have lawyers that are familiar with British law? Though like with his other lawsuits, I'm sure he has no case whatsoever and he's hoping they will settle with him for a few million dollars. After all, ABC and CBS settled with him, so why can't he bully other networks?
Or how about disbarring the lawyers for bringing cases like this to court? Yes, I know lawyers are almost obligated to file any cases their clients want, but at some point they should realize these companies have logos that are completely different. In turn, this means copyright lawyers are taking money from the client knowing there's no case.
Maybe I'm old, but I just can't get over the phrase, "your fridge will miss out on software updates", like it's running Windows. Again, I may be old, but I want my fridge to keep things cool, so why does it need software that needs to be updated? Why does it need software at all?
This statement needs to be shared more often. People should understand that Fox News actually admitted to being entertainment and opinion under oath in court when they were sued. Yet people still watch them thinking they're actually delivering news.
What a stupid decision
Let's get it out of the way that murdering people without a trial or even accusing them of a crime is horrible. But I've watched enough police shows to know thst you NEVER kill the guy transporting the drugs since he's a small fish. Instead, you arrest him and interrogate him to lead you to the big fish. Where's the US navy or Coast Guard? Why aren't they scooping up these "drug runners", arresting them, and learning who's supplying the drugs? Oh, right, Trump doesn't care and he just wants to kill people. Today, it's "drug runners" and tomorrow it'll be political enemies.
We also live in a world where way too many politicians play the game of "my side good, your side bad". Using your example, a Democrat could try to ban child marriage and many Republicans would oppose it (and vote FOR child marriage) just because it's something the Democrats want.
Telezapper
Back when I had a land line, I got a device called a Telezapper, which promised to reduce robo calls. It worked by sending the "number is disconnected" tones when you picked up the phone. The robocaller machine on the other end would hear the tones and mark your number as disconnected. Then in time, your number would be spread to other databases as disconnected, and the robo calls would stop. Why is there not a similar technology for call phones?
But keep in mind that $24 million to Google is like $5 traffic ticket to you and me. And would you pay the $5 to be done with the problem or fight it and go to court? Yes, the right thing to do is fight it, but still.
Trump: Democrats are domestic terrorists that should be round up and beaten and deported. Also Trump: we need to pass a budget to fund the government. Why won't the Democrats work with us? They're being so unfair.