dhork

What is the Pope is a Bears fan?

The key thing for elections is that all counts ought to be auditable and verifiable. It doesn't matter whether the count is done by humans or electronically. Enough information from each individual vote must be preserved so that counts can be verified, during the legal window for races to be confirmed.

I am old enough that when I first started voting, we used lever machines. You pushed a lever for your choice in each race, then you pushed a big lever, which "recorded" your choice and resets all levers for the next person. But, it recorded your choice on manual dials that showed the vote total. Sometimes, the dial has issues rolling over from "9" to "10", or "9999" to "10000". If your vote got swallowed by the mechanical dial, it's gone! There was no remedy. At the end of the election, the poll workers reported the counts off the dials. If they needed a recount, they looked at the dials and said "Yup, that's the count".

Today, I vote on a paper ballot, which gets fed into a machine. I can see right away if my vote is accepted -- if it is not, I can get a new ballot and try again. All those paper ballots are retained so if there is a recount, they can either be run again or physically inspected by hand. It is much better tha it used to be.

The videos are never associated with a user's identity and are deleted after the verification process. Audio is never recorded.

I actually believe them. It's gonna start out this way. But in a year or two, they'll quietly slip in a provision stating they will hold on to the images for a short time for security purposes, then they will say that they will associate your image with your identity to make it more secure, then Google's AI will know everything about everyone (and sell the info to the highest bidder)

Lol, good one, who actually thinks AI companies are profitable?

Exactly. My terminology might not be correct, but my point is that their books can be perfectly balanced, and they can also be losing a shit-ton of money, as long as investors keep shoveling money in.

I'm not an accountant, but you can certainly balance books while showing a loss. Double-entry bookkeeping simply means that every transaction has two parts, and "balancing" simply means that all the transactions cancel out properly.

I joke with my accountant friends that their entire job is counting to zero.

That's quite easy, the books are balanced, there are just more debits than credits. "Balancing the books" doesn't mean that the net result is zero, it means that all the money going in and going out is accounted for.

OpenAI can keep bleeding money as long as there are fools willing to fund it in exchange for the illusion of future profits.

That's because the problem is not whether or not he was exact in his quotation. He could have been reading those passages directly from the book and they would have still had a cow.

And the article actually nails the reason why quite well: those passages are inclusionary, and really points out how these Nationalist Christians are distorting that message. They have turned their form of American Christianity into only caring about abortion, guns, and how evil immigrants and trans people are. But the Jesus in that book loves everyone, unconditionally, and calls his followers to love everyone too.

If Jesus were alive today, the Nat-C's would have sent him to CECOT already. (It doesn't help his case that he's a brown-skinned Palestinian Jew....)

Seems kind of tame for British PMs, at least Starmer hasn't fucked a dead pig, as far as we know

In German, wouldn't that all be one word?

They didn't reject adding SpaceX, they simply said they would not change the rules to add it early, like the other indexes are. Those rules include a minimum time listed as a public company, a certain percentage of shares being floated to the public, and some profitability. I doubt SpaceX ever gets there.

Some of those other AI companies might make it through the gauntlet, though, and be listed eventually.

Note = loan in this context. OP is saying he doesn't want the burden of a monthly payment on a new car, and would rather buy a cheaper car that he doesn't need to borrow for. (Although these are becoming harder to find, at least in the US....)