The issue is every federation - whether they never qualified for the world cup or won final(s) - gets one vote. This has become a big issue, with any proposal to give more money (even if that entails compromising on key principles) to federations (by making more money) is almost certain to pass because of very poor FAs that need it / want it desperately.
Yeah, but if UEFA stays true to their word, passing this proposal is guaranteed to lead to the end of a FIFA-led world cup. They have the votes to privatize the world cup, but in doing so would destroy the very thing they are trying to privatize, and likely destroy FIFA as a whole
Meanwhile UEFA can just get together with South America and form a new governing body for a new world cup
@gmail.com and @outlook.com are like 90% of the spam I receive. What’s missing is effective accountability for those two companies hosting persistent spam groups who operate for months unimpeded.
A careless psychopath firing a gun into a crowd doesn’t necessarily care if he hits anyone. Despite the lack of intent, most would consider that careless psychopath worse than an individual that commits premeditated homicide for a reason other than “fun”.
Intent is irrelevant. The person firing a gun into a crowd knows the consequences of their actions just as well as a lazy judge or prosecutor does.
The job of the prosecutor is to convict, I don't think it matters whether the person is innocent or not. They have no moral responsibility, if it is most efficient to their career to damn an innocent person the system is designed for the purpose of doing so.
Why should AI enthusiasts expect logical reasoning?
AI "reasoning" is the model babbling to itself, using statistically likely sequences of words that appear in the training data. Of course that will often produce valid chains of logic, but not because it in any way understands the principle behind it. It is ONLY modelling LANGUAGE, not any of the mental processes that guide the use of language in humans (and which might even exist in animals not capable of language).
When asked to carefully check itself, it might spot errors because their structure matches common examples of fallacies, or it might not, and instead insert some further bullshit like "Assumption Verified — 100% correct! It all checks out [insert some emojis here]". That then becomes part of its context, and further boosts its unfounded confidence.
Lawbreaking is almost never prosecuted, so you’ll have to explicitly explain the reasoning behind your question.
Far less than 1% of all crime which happens is prosecuted, why should OpenAI be prosecuted?
Since the necessary context isn’t provided, this just seems like an utterly stupid question. The obvious answer is “OpenAI probably isn’t being prosecuted because crimes are almost never prosecuted”.
It’s like asking why I don’t get arrested every time I get stopped shitfaced drunk at the La Turbie police checkpoint. The answer is obvious: The cops are looking for brown people, there are no taxis here and after 2am everyone driving in the vicinity of Monaco will be drunk. i.e. nobody gives a shit
Aaron was offered two plea deals, one that carried 4 months and another with 6 months but a chance to plead with the judge for a lesser, perhaps entirely noncustodial sentence.
It’s a particularly poor example of government cruelty.
> You're excluding about half of the planet by only mentioning Africa.
It's the half of the planet that nobody cares about when it comes to football.