Angelica Rucker-
The MAGA terrorist that attacked a family pushing two infant children in strollers with a knife for accidentally bumping her lightly on a busy NY sidewalk as she protested for Trump.
Stopped by police from murdering a family in cold blood over nothing.
In other Trump riots masses of armed white men surrounded passers by, detained and threatened them, knocking one black woman out cold as she and her wife tried to escape the violent assault and battery by dozens of white men.

This is MAGA. Crazy murderous terrorist cultists committing violent crimes in support of your cult leader. At CPAC MAGA flew banners declaring “We are domestic terrorists” yet you still deny it?

Hilariously, the MAGA investigations keep proving every accusation is an admission. The report on the FBI “going after parents for trying to have just a little input on their schools” released quietly last week showed that every parent investigated had made serious death threats to school boards and their families including direct death threats made against and to early grade school children, (like the handwritten note -“sorry your mommy is a commie whore, but if she doesn’t quit we are going to kill her, but first we are going to kill you” handed to I think a 7 year old) some attempting to follow through.
The weaponization of the federal government investigation has gone much worse, with the chairman illegally weaponizing the federal government against the Manhattan DA publicly as he presides over the farce.
And never forget Trump directly calling to suspend the constitution so he can be reinstalled by force.

That’s Tesla’s position…but no.

The man had been complaining about the brakes not working properly for months according to his family (yet kept driving, making him culpable imo).

It’s easily possible his brake sensor failed on the pedal, then there would be no light. Since I assume, to be capable of autopilot, Tesla brakes are by wire/electrical, not hydraulic, a simple sensor failure means no brakes at all and no brake lights. (And no record that he hit the brakes)

Again, never once heard of a panic pedal misidentification lasting 1/2 that long. Possible, but unlikely. 99/100 of pedal misidentification are well under 1 second mistakes during parking. There have been many reports of throttle sticking/ accelerating without throttle input in teslas.

Since Tesla denies fault EVERY TIME NO MATTER WHAT, and hides the vast majority of driver assisted crashes, I’ll wait for the third party investigation, but on the surface, to me, it looks like a software (or hardware) failure….and that’s what the driver says too.

Lol. I’M narrow minded?!? ROTFLMFAHS!!!

Who told you that?! They lied.

Wiki-Five House Committees (Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform) initiated their own inquiries soon after the attack. The Republicans on these five House Committees delivered an interim report to the Members of the House Republican Conference on April 23, 2013. The interim report, which contains the conclusions of the Republican majority staff, signed only by the five Republican chairmen of those committees and stated "This staff report has not been officially adopted by the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and therefore may not necessarily reflect the views of their Members," was critical of the Obama Administration's actions before, during, and after the attack. Among dozens of findings, the report states that:

"Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel"
The "[Obama] Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video."
"... after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya ..."
"The Administration deflected responsibility by blaming the IC [intelligence community] for the information it communicated to the public in both the talking points and the subsequent narrative it perpetuated."
Democrats on the five committees criticized the report, which they said had been written without Democratic input, as a "partisan Republican" work that was "unnecessarily politicizing our national security".

Also “ Democrats on the committee certainly say this was political and politically constructed. They say there were many witnesses whose testimony wasn't released because it supported the administration and particularly supported Hillary Clinton.”

There were 8 Benghazi investigations, 7 of which were only done as political attacks on Clinton to hurt her presidential run, admitted by McCarthy and others on tape. That’s why, even though their Republican led investigations found no wrongdoing he called it a win against Clinton because the accusations hurt her politically.

You get what you call one point of view because one side, the anti democracy pro-sedition side, refuses to testify, ignores subpoenas, and hides and destroys evidence….the same “side” that boycotted the investigations and refused to authorize a non partisan outside investigation, then whined they weren’t being allowed to participate…the treason side….your side.
They have absolutely been able to present another side…under oath. Trump has an open invitation, as do all his co-conspirators that ignored subpoenas. They refuse, or are incapable.
There have been plenty of Trump officials who did give their point of view, and every one has said Trump was clearly attempting a coup, knew he lost the election early, knew his plots were absolutely illegal, and many quit on Jan 6 when it became obvious he was willing to violently attack America and his own VP intentionally to retain power by any means.
You know this, you just hope someone else is as dumb as you act and can be fooled into believing your nonsense that this is a partisan politically motivated hatchet job, not an investigation into the worst attack against America on the mainland since the Southern Insurrection (otherwise known as the civil war).

He absolutely faked it. Consider:

- Happened to wear a skydiving parachute for the first time on YT on this flight
- Fuel selector line to the right wing was visibly disconnected, accounting for an empty wing, short intended flight, and the lack of fire
- Left door was ajar when prop started to sputter
- Down/up pitch inputs during "engine failure" add drag and slow the plane, whereas basic pilot training is to put the nose down to gain airspeed

This pilot had some good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=724JxkwWqA8

Your girl…..



Gonna be funny when Republicans can do nothing but vote in congress because none of them can control their xenophobic insanity and all get tossed off committees and special assignments, silenced by censure, so have no input in writing or debating bills.

Love the info about Boebert’s pedophile pervert husband that she’s gone trolling for young girls with. How was she not prosecuted with him?
Also hilarious that she’s making these insane, but innocuous claims about Omar paying her husband (actually his political consulting firm) from her campaign (exactly as you would expect, and just like many Republican representatives do) when she’s actually guilty of misappropriating campaign funds to pay her own rent and utilities and her (unemployed?) pedophile pervert husband and herself, and (now admittedly fraudulently) took reimbursement for driving 37000 miles over 8 months last year for campaign purposes without any required documentation, and is under federal investigation for those and other campaign finance abuses.

I think the worst part of these summits is their stated goals.
Paris intended to keep warming to 1.5 degrees by 2050 (no real plan beyond then)…but you might recall, 1.5 degrees of warming is considered the tipping point where feedback loops and natural processes outpace human inputs, meaning even if we hit zero emissions by 2050, and if everyone kept to their Paris agreement promises, and if other nations don’t continue to ramp up emissions, and if unforeseen feedback loops aren’t stronger or faster acting than predicted, we still lose control completely by 2050. That’s the best plan we have, runaway climate shifts in <30 years AT BEST….and no one seems to be living up to even that planned disaster of a plan. Emissions aren’t being cut, they’re increasing. Feedback loops are ramping up 40 years earlier than predicted. All the while, people are complaining that gas is over $3 (I haven’t seen it under $4 in decades where I live) and insisting we adopt some heavily polluting power generation instead of investing in green energy solutions. People assume, it seems, that some last minute fix will solve climate change, ignoring the fact that emissions from today are reactive in the atmosphere for between 25 and 150 years, so we needed to be at net zero 25 years ago to even start effecting the atmosphere today…and some emissions from the industrial revolution are still effecting us now. Net zero by 2050 (a pipe dream, and the best plan so far) is planning to fail completely…like turning off the blast furnace in your house when the thermometer hits 450.5 inside and thinking you can stop it from burning down.
If Covid taught us anything, it’s that there is 0% chance humans will be able to cooperate enough to tackle climate change. People were asked to simply wear a mask and distance a bit to save their lives, and enough refused to do it that the methods that worked beautifully elsewhere failed miserably to control a virus. If we can’t pull off such a simple, blatantly obvious plan against a virus, what chance is there of cooperation across the board to sacrifice enormous amounts of money and completely revamp our wasteful way of life in uncountable ways to stop something seen as a future problem by many? IMO, there so little chance of pulling it off that it’s statistically correct to say there’s absolutely no chance at all.

"Sheriff Bill Gore said Monday that the dramatic video his department publicized last week, intending to highlight the danger of fentanyl to law enforcement, was produced without any input from physicians."

10: print "The election was rigged!"
20: input "Do you have proof (y/n)?" $answer
30: goto 10

What in the Fuck is a "police jury" and why would they have any input on the decision at all?

BLM, take note. May the next storm topple any confederate monuments to treason in your area, even if the winds are only 20mph. If the power is out, there's no video proving the wind didn't take them down, right? (Hint hint)

Apropos of my name, Stuka pilot Hans Rudel provided input to the original construction of the A-10.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

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/

Yes, we're overpopulated. That doesn't invalidate my arguments.

I gave examples of multiple cultures that do what you claim is impossible. I never implied Americans would accept a lower standard of living, only that it's the right thing to strive for, and coming like it or not.

I grow 75% of the produce for two people on 3/4 acres.

Masses of people are going to die unnecessarily. Period. This could be avoided, but won't be. Our choice is accept less now, or have nothing later.

The dependence on fossil fuels for agriculture could be quartered with some minor changes with little drop in output. The western world won't make the investment needed to make that a reality. Also, the fossil fuel needed to make fertilizers is not a significant amount....maybe as little as 3%of natural gas produced.

There are millions of hungry people now without access to the artificially supported agriculture system who relied on natural sources that no longer exist. Aren't you concerned about them?

Name one I listed not supported by science.

Food shortages are preferable to no food.

The 3' estimate is old, based on estimates already proven miserably wrong. Like I said, Greenland is melting as a rate they predicted to not happen until 2075.

When tens of millions must flee low lying areas, and all low lying farmland is underwater, and much of the rest in drought or flood, what do you think happens?

By 2100, all estimates show us far past the tipping points where human input is no longer the driving force. Even the IPCC said we have until 2030 or so to cut emissions in half, and we are not lowering emissions, we're raising them. 50 years out is 75 years late....but better than never.....but we aren't on that path at all. Investment in fossil fuel systems continues to accelerate thanks to emerging third world nations like China and India making the same mistakes the Western world made, but in greater quantities.

The IPCC report said if we don't immediately cut emissions today, by half in 11 years and to zero in 30, then negative emissions for the next 50 that we're on track to hit 3-6C rise by 2100 and raising that estimated temperature rise daily....4C gives the 3' sea level rise by 2100 with current models, but they are woefully inadequate and have proven to be vast underestimation of actual melting already.

We may develop the necessary tech, we won't develop the will to implement it. Indeed, we're at that point today....have been for decades.

Yep, sure, no sacrifices needed. You can have it all and more and let the next guy pay the bill. What if we're the last guys in line?

Funny, isn't that what the Paris climate accord is? Sane leaders giving such stupidity serious consideration, because they understand it's not stupidity it's reality. Granted, they don't go nearly far enough, but they did something more than just claim it will be fixed in the future by something that doesn't exist today and ignoring human behavior and all trends, because using/having less is simply unacceptable.

We need a nice pandemic to cull us by 9/10 and a few intelligent Maos to drive us back to sustainability. We won't get either in time.

I think it kind of depends on what he means by 16,000x louder? If he's talking in decibels, then it's already a logarithmic scale, so 16,000x times higher output amplitude is about 84db? higher (which is no joke) not quite sure on the maths there. 16,000db higher is basically impossible unless we are talking a supernova or something.

That puts it at over 204db which is apparently the same volume as the Saturn V launch. Which would definitely kill you, but maybe not 8000 times over... I mean once really does the trick.

If he's talking about the energy input, it seems that's a different thing according to wikipedia, and would result in an increase of 42db, which puts it at 162db, which is about the same as a 12-guage.

He may also mean that the sound is that loud at source, but as the guy was probably trying to say as he was squirming, the distance matters. The sound energy will be dissipated over a 2D shell and so I'd guess it drops off proportional to distance squared plus some extra for loss as it goes.

All of that is in air, it's quite a different matter in the water as I think the force is transmitted more efficiently.

Either way, every 10 seconds for months? No thanks.