Media(and even some of the vocal scientists trying to urge action) have been guilty of overstating confidence in climate modelling. Which is more or less what they are agreeing on in the video.

The IPCC summary of state of the art climate modelling, and virtually ALL published papers on various climate models agree that the unknown and poorly modelled aspects of our climate are larger than the known influence of CO2.

That is to say, the physical modelling largely operates on energy in and out from the Sun and then playing out how changes in that energy balance operate. The thing is, that energy budget is enormous, and the number of factors at play are even larger and dynamic to make it more fun. The influence of CO2 in the energy budget is one of the relatively straightforward elements, and so we've got a pretty good and confident assessment of how much it impacts energy balance. The problem with climate modelling, is that the CO2 impact is smaller than the errors and unknowns in many other factors in the model including clouds.

Which is all saying that our climate modelling is hard, and even though we know CO2 changes are pushing the energy balance up, our modelling of the energy balance is still not good enough to accurately predict energy balance changes. That means we've got a giant 'all other things being equal' qualifier on model projections because if cloud behaviour changes based on temperature, we KNOW that our errors there are larger than the influence of CO2.

Modellers have been trying to draw attention to this nuance, but it's been deemed inconvenient to persuading the public to act and thus ignored by many pushing for action. The almost inevitable side effect though is that over time the reality of the models inaccuracy will play out and the public is gonna be asking why 'science' was wrong.

I think you're missing my point.

My point is, I just hopped over to MSNBC, and reading from the top of the page, 18 of the 21 top headlines were about either Trump, Guiliani or Hunter Biden. They are obsessing and distracting their 'blue' base with all the same garbage as Fox, but they are better because they are pointing out the wrongs.

Maybe a better analogy, MSNBC is like Dr. Phil bringing on the worst examples of humanity and letting the audience rage bait and feel superior to the horrible humans on display. Trump has been the perfect recurring guest for a never ending MSNBC parade of horrible behaviour.

I'm not against calling out that behaviour, I'm in favour of it. I'm just calling it rather dishonest to have 99% of your airtime and coverage all focused on nothing else, and then spend the last 1% complaining about the other side obsessing...

Um... what!?
Best I can tell, this young person was just concerned for the wellbeing of her friend, and given the number of videos that we see on the Sift of cops showing that they absolutely cannot be trusted, I think that's fair enough.

If your argument is that it's wrong that her boyfriend would probably get much worse treatment for the same behaviour, then you've phrased it really strangely, but I agree; we need fewer people caught up in the justice system for minor stuff, not more, regardless of gender or race.

Good on the cops in this case for getting the balance right and only charging the idiot who got drunk and endangered others by getting behind the wheel.

I was going to start off saying that the whole concept of a private ambulance company - an essential service run for profit that so obviously benefits the wealthy over the poor - is so alien to me that it feels wrong to my core.

Then I read your comment and thought that the training really is at the heart of this. Were they sufficiently trained and managed to know that this could/would kill?

This is not a rhetorical question.

If they were paid little and/or forced to work long shifts so they're facing this while tired enough not to think/care, then I blame the company and, by association, the system. If they were well trained and had no genuine excuse (rather than reason) for their behaviour then I blame them.

The reality probably isn't as cut-and-dried as I present it above, but there's definitely a spectrum of blame to be considered.

Not making any assumptions, just raising possibilities that goes through the mind of any cop facing such a situation. And I'm not condoning his behaviour, but I do see how the recent racial unrest would make some cops second-guess their actions, and become reluctant to respond the same way had they faced a white guy.

Also, you never shoot to wound. Shooting is lethal force.

"...and apologized for their response to the protest".

Aw, gee guys. I'm sorry about that, you know, illegal and violent behaviour that we did to y'all. I swear it won't happen again.

British channel? The Irish tend not to appreciate that kind of behaviour!

I understand and support the protesting as there are clearly systemic racism issues that have long needed to be addressed. I understand the rioting - people are fed up and tired of inaction. But I can't agree with her explanation and rationalization of the looting. I highly doubt all of the looters were impoverished and just wanted to sample the luxuries that they see other more well-off people enjoying. Instead, I suspect many of them saw an opportunity in the chaos of the protests and riots to take advantage of the situation. White, black, it doesn't matter - there are always people out there that are more than willing to steal when the opportunity presents itself. It's wrong, plain and simple, and, in my opinion, trying to rationalize and forgive that type of behaviour weakens her otherwise reasonable argument.

I've always found it funny that vegans never figured out that attacking people for their behaviour and/or beliefs will usually cause the victim to become more adamant. Like, I can almost agree with them, but being onside with arrogant, narcissistic blowhards makes me physically nauseous.

The flu, partying night before...

I just think it's bizarre behaviour of all involved. As it's happened since birth, she's normalized it, but being programmed to think being recorded is just another weekly chore -like I had to collect and take out the trash- is an alien concept to me.

She has achieved her Warhol Quota though...

EDIT: Her brother Vince is being documented too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWINGOpjwrs&feature=emb_rel_pause
16 years so far.

Fairly typical for chooks to do this in my experience. Mine sometimes follow me around in a group even when I don't have food for them.
They also communicate to each other that food is available which kicks off the flocking behaviour. Some roosters will yell when they notice a food source and wait for hens to eat before they do.

It is relatively easy to get a quite common pre 1986 machine gun.

The whole process is cheap. $200. Fill out a ATF form 4 and attach a passport sized photo. There are only a few questions to answer (that take up about 2.5 pages). This took about 30 seconds on google to find out. It is not more difficult to pass this background audit than that of a federal agent. I've looked into applying to be a federal agent and their process is an order of magnitude more stringent.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download

"What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing."

You asked me what I considered a firearm. I answered both my personal opinion, and then specifically said that what the government considers a firearm to be is what it is. I'm surprised you seem to have missed this.

Registries are a step towards being able to confiscate guns en-masse. If you know who has what it is much easier to take it away from them. This sentiment is well documented on pro-gun forums.

"It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload"

Very true. I was tempted to point this out but I didn't. I believe that this is one of the core reasons they want to do it. It makes you think they are doing something when they aren't, and it costs sweet fuck all compared to say, spending money on anything else that will genuinely improve the average man's lot.

'your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption'

Now that's the thing about warnings, you aren't assuming the behaviour of anyone. You only know it is a possibility that you don't want to happen. You don't know if it will happen or not. So you put up a warning. That's how warnings work.

But hey, this is your house right? Make no mistake, you've stamped yourself all over videosift like a dog marking its territory. Outsiders who don't comply with your way of thinking basically aren't welcome.

I didn't call you dumb. I warned you that if you were to do something (future tense possibility) then the result would be that you were being dumb.

Do you get how that works? There are multiple future possibilities, I don't want one to happen so I warn against it. This is not a difficult concept so I am at a loss as to why you don't understand it.

There was nothing in your previous correspondence to suggest that it would be a statement referring to a past tense behavior. You unfortunately assumed it to be referring to past tense behaviour. If you had doubt as to what I was referring to you could have just asked. I.e. if you read it and went "does he mean past tense or future tense? There isn't any past tense behaviour he could be referring to, so logically it must be future tense. I'm still confused though", you could have just asked which it was.

I believe any restrictions on the 2A have been justified by the supreme court. So they believe it was within the scope of what the founders intended. That is how.

"Hazard a guess" and "assume" are two different things.

Hazard a guess means to admit you don't know what is true but that with the given information you will gamble on an outcome (with full disclosure that it could be wrong).

Assume means to presume something is true, without any proof that it is.

You're welcome.

This isn't really true though and greatly understates how amazing this demo, and current AI actually is.

Saying the agents are obeying a set of human defined rules / freedoms / constraints and objective functions would lead one to imagine something more like video game AI.

Typically video game AI works on a set of weighted decisions and actions, where the weights, decisions and actions are defined by the developer; a more complex variation of:

if my health is low, move towards the health pack,
otherwise, move towards the opponent

In this demo, no such rules exist. It's not given any weights (health), rules (if health is low), nor any instructions (move towards health pack). I guess you could apply neural networks to traditional game AI to determine the weights for decision making (which are typically hard coded by the developer); but that would be far less interesting than what's actually happening here.

Instead, the agent is given a set of inputs, a set of available outputs, and a goal.

4 Inputs:
- Position of the agent itself
- Position and type (other agent, box, ramp) of objects within a limited forward facing conical view
- Position (but not type) of objects within a small radius around the agent
- Reward: Whether they are doing a good job or not

Note the agent is given no information about each type of object, or what they mean, or how they behave. You may as well call them A, B, C rather than agent, box, ramp.

3 Outputs:
- Move
- Grab
- Lock

Again, the agent knows nothing about what these mean, only that they can enable and disable each at any time. A good analogy is someone giving you a game controller for a game you've never played. The controller has a stick and two buttons and you figure out what they do by using them. It'd be accurate to call the outputs: stick, A, B rather than move, grab, lock.

Goal:
- Do a good job.

The goal is simply for the reward input to be maximised. A good analogy is saying 'good girl' or giving a treat to a dog that you are training when they do the right thing. It's up to the dog to figure out what it is that they're doing that's good.

The reward is entirely separate from the agent, and agent behaviour can be completely changed just by changing when the reward is given. The demo is about hide and seek, where the agents are rewarded for not being seen / seeing their opponent (and not leaving the play area). The agents also succeeded at other games, where the only difference to the agent was when the reward was given.

It isn't really different from physically building the same play space, dropping some rats in it, and rewarding them with cheese when they are hidden from their opponents - except rats are unlikely to figure out how to maximise their reward in such a 'complex' game.

Given this description of how the AI actually works, the fact they came up with complex strategies like blocking doors, ramp surfing, taking the ramp to stop their opponents from ramp surfing, and just the general cooperation with other agents, without any code describing any of those things - is pretty amazing.

You can find out more about how the agents were trained, and other exercises they performed here:

https://openai.com/blog/emergent-tool-use/

Another entrant in the incredibly long line of adaptation / adaptive learning / intelligent systems / artificial intelligence demonstrations that aren't. The agents act based on a set of rules / freedoms/constraints prescribed by a human. The agents "learn" based on the objective functions defined by the human. With enough iterations (how many times did the narrator say "millions" in the video) . Sure, it is a good demonstration of how adaptive learning works, but the hype-fog is getting a big thick and sickening folks. This is a very complex optimization problem being solved with impressive and current technologies, but it is certainly not behavioural intelligence.