A few leagues have been using the VAR system (video assistant referee) for a while now, and it'll also be used at the upcoming World Cup in Russia.

They only interfere in case of obviously incorrect decisions by the ref or situations of significant impact (i.e. penalties, send-offs, off-side goals, etc). This particular case would have led to the ref booking the attacker for a dive.

Works pretty well in Germany these days after going through some issues in the first half of this season.

Uber's long term goal is to cut drivers out altogether.
(Not sure how that would work for this dreamed up helicopter scenario...)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on

Common hatred is a much more effective motivator than common goals. Sad, but true.

Acknowledging G W being demonstrably better than Trump is in no way an endorsement of him any more than acknowledging golden showers are cleaner than full blown fecalfilia is endorsing watersports....it's recognition that bad comes in gradations, not just pass/fail.

So here’s the thing. I’m willing to bet large amounts of money that the robot is using some kind of machine learning algorithm.

Which means, that all we can do is set it a task, not tell it HOW to achieve the desired result. As a corollary to this, we also don’t understand the robots “reasoning”.

Where am I going with this?

Well, we’ve told the robot to go through the door. It’s figured out how to do this. And now, we’re fucking with it to force it to come up with new solutions. Well, the most obvious solution is to eliminate the pesky human preventing it from achieving its goal.

I’m not actually joking here.

I kinda like the one where the "injured" player stares at the fouler (sp?) for a full second before dropping to the ground.

Then there's the one where the guy gets a goal, but gets absolutely, stone cold, DROPPED by another player at the same time. He totally brushes it off so the goal stays.

I agree for the most part, but with batteries, now becoming reasonable in size and price, it's not so hard to be totally off grid. Micro hydro can also be efficient power storage if properly designed with a dual reservoir system.
Granted, that seems to work best in small scale setups so far, but there is an island .....(https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/09/17/349223674/tiny-spanish-island-nears-its-goal-100-percent-renewable-energy)
...currently (since 2014) using this tech to be nearly 100% green.

Dismissing projections as unrealistic without fully examining them may doom our economy and planet.
That's what happened with solar, people just claimed it's expensive and unreliable, which meant those they convinced didn't know how wrong that is, and didn't buy systems or support solar farms. I ignored them and did some light math, and found that even an expensive high tech system with batteries, professionally installed, would pay for itself in about 8 years, with a 20 year expected lifespan (and I live in Humboldt county, with the foggiest airport in America, not Arizona). I'm damn glad I didn't listen. Even a 2 year delay would have cost me 1/2 my rebates, making the system take an extra 2+ years to pay for itself by costing me thousands upon thousands of dollars (instead of saving me thousands per year).

Edit: Also, here in Humboldt we just switched to choice in electricity, we can choose regular pge power (mostly old school generation), a mixture of up to 75% (I think, maybe higher) renewable for cheaper, or 100% renewable for more. All 3 now bill transmission (including voltage/frequency regulation) separately, so it's easy to see what generation alone costs. It's clear so far that mostly renewable is the best bet economically, and I assume it will become more renewable as new technologies become available.....at least I hope so.

Trump's a buffoon randomly dancing around from one tire fire to set off another. This is no defence of him or any 'thought', motive or goal behind anything he does.

I'm just pointing out that the world's reaction of horror and outrage to moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is naive and hypocritical. It is naive in that clearly the peace process has been dead since WW2.

I'm going to list points that seem to clearly indicate the peace process didn't exist and tell me anything you disagree with cause I suspect we are working from different 'facts'.

Israel clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
Hamas clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
Fatah clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
The Muslim world clearly doesn't want to share Jerusalem with an Israeli state.
The Israeli state clearly doesn't want to share Jerusalem with a Palestinian state.

With the above, and Israeli's militarily dominant position over the Palestinians the only 'peace' process is going to be whatever Israel decides it wants that to be. Morality, wishes, blundering American 'presidents' and anything else we want to pull out doesn't really matter in the face of that. Israel has the might and the ability and so they will do what they want. My hope is to influence the Israeli state towards equitable, fair and compassionate treatment of Palestinians. If Israel decides to create a one state solution, but abides by that fine. Two states with borders unilaterally laid out by Israel, fine. So long as popular opinion in Israel can be won in favour of fair, equitable and compassionate treatment of Palestinians then that's the most I hope or wish for. I think it's a realistic goal that can be realized.

Sensible discussion is not his goal.
https://videosift.com/video/How-the-Alt-Right-Trolls

Your video, Goalie Scores Rare Goal and Milks It For All It's Worth, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 16 Badge!

Upvoting for trying to solve a problem, but this will ultimately fail in its goals.

The problem here is not that "car traffic moves too slowly," the problem is that there are too many cars. The solution will be in redesigning cities to be less car-dependent, allowing people to live within cycling distance of most of their needs, and invest in mass transit.

If anything, this project will deffer funds away from transit and planning solutions that would solve the problem.

But how different is telling a drone "kill the person with this face" to telling a missile "fly here and blow up". The video seems to show ez-assassination technology (tm) being used by "the wrong" humans, not AI going rogue and deciding who lives and who dies on its own.

To me, the video is scary not because of AI, but because of how easy and inconsequential it portrays murder. It makes you wonder if that isn't sort of the end goal of advanced warfare technology - the more surgical it becomes the further it deviates from our idea of what war is - this is drone warfare and it's nebulous legality taken to the very extreme.

What I perhaps find unsettling in myself is that I find this somehow worse than open warfare - as if its not the loss of life that bothers me, but the sinister efficiency of it. Is that really a valid criticism? Why is it "more ok" to fly a plane to drop a bomb on some foreigner than for a drone to do it - is it because it simply costs/risks us more, that technology like this cheapens human life?

The AI takin over is scary too. I just hope they work out in time that the only winning move is not to play.

Daaaaaaaamn! I ain't been "You're the wizard stoned" in AGES!

Every now and then, I get a little misty-eye'd for the days of yore when ultra-high-grade pot wasn't available at every corner store.

I recall the days of lurking narcs in city parks; being out in the middle of a drought; going to a head shop to buy a bong then getting kicked out 'cuz I asked for it wrong (the magic word was "Tobacco", not "pot", you twat!)

The pot was stemmy, the sellers seedy, and I didn't care because I was hella needy.

But once a year, just 'fore November, would come the time I most remember because it was in those shortening days when I'd hear a rumor of Purple Haze, Ghost Train OG -- I'd be stoned for DAYS! Finally, the good stuff came from coastal plots, a plethora of the finest pots; time to dance and restore my stash: shit, I might even score some HASH!

My friends would come by and we'd all get high, never aware of time passing us by. We laughed, we munched, we floated along with hits from the joints and pulls from the bong. We never imagined dabs or wax, we were satisfied with bud: nothing wrong with those facts.

Now I buy an a gram or two -- Dirty Girl; Gorilla Glue -- and satisfied that my wife's in bed, I once again become a Head. I remember all those days gone by when there was no greater goal than just getting high. I recall them fondly -- if somewhat hazy -- and know that life without pot is just a little too crazy.

Politico has a long piece on Boehner. It includes this little gem:

On Sunday, July 17, it appeared they had a deal. Boehner and Virginia Representative Eric Cantor—whom the speaker had reluctantly brought into the negotiations, knowing the majority leader’s distrust of Obama could poison the talks—worked out some final details that morning at the White House. When the president returned from church, Boehner says, he invited them both into the Oval Office and shook their hands. Some fine-tuning remained, but in Boehner’s mind the so-called grand bargain was done. The framework included reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; $1.2 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending; and $800 billion in new revenue. “I was one happy son of a bitch,” Boehner tells me.

The next 48 hours changed everything. On Tuesday morning, the so-called Gang of Six—three senators from each party who had been discussing their own sweeping fiscal agreement—announced a briefing for their colleagues at the Capitol. They unveiled a separate framework, totally unaware of what Obama and Boehner had agreed to. This deal included significantly more revenue. Chambliss, by then a senator, was one of the GOP Gang members and had no idea—because Boehner had been negotiating with the president in private—that their announcement would kill the speaker’s deal with the White House. Obama saw that Republican senators were endorsing a deal that included far more revenue, and knew there was no way he could sell the grand bargain to his liberal base. When he came back with a counteroffer, seeking a higher revenue number, it validated Cantor’s warnings about not trusting the president. And by that point Boehner’s members had heard enough about the grand bargain to know they didn’t like it—with the $800 billion revenue figure, much less something higher.

So the deal fell apart, and the two sides peddled their competing versions of events: Boehner’s team said the White House moved the goal posts, while Obama’s allies said the speaker couldn’t sell his own members on the deal.

I agree. When racism is so institutionalized it may require a racist response to get to equality. I just think we need to be honest about it so, when equality is neared, we can end ALL institutional racism.

To be clear, I identified as a feminist for around 25 years before realizing how the group as a whole didn't want fairness and equality because they wouldn't ever address an inequality they benefit from. Why would I work against my own interests for a group that never has my interests or well being, or even fairness and equality as a goal?