Claiming it’s just marketing fluff is indicates you do not know what you’re talking about.
They published a research paper on it. You are free to publish your own paper disproving theirs.
At the moment, you sound like one of those “I did my own research” people except you didn’t even bother doing your own research.
The computer science industry isn’t the authority on artificial intelligence it thinks it is. The industry is driven by a level of hubris that causes people to step beyond the bounds of science and into the realm of humanities without acknowledgment.
Intellegence has a very clear definition.
It’s requires the ability to acquire knowledge, understand knowledge and use knowledge.
No one has been able to create an system that can understand knowledge, therefor me none of it is artificial intelligence. Each generation is merely more and more complex knowledge models. Useful in many ways but never intelligent.
Yes, Apple haters can’t admit nor understand it but Apple doesn’t do pseudo-tech.
They may do silly things, they may love their 100% mark up but it’s all real technology.
The AI pushers or today are akin to the pushers of paranormal phenomenon from a century ago. These pushers want us to believe, need us to believe it so they can get us addicted and extract value from our very existence.
Proving it matters. Science is constantly proving any other thing that people believe is obvious because people have an uncanning ability to believe things that are false. Some people will believe things long after science has proven them false.
When someone gives an ultimatum of “me or them” (a or b), the best choice is almost always never a. It is the least restrictive choice.
If there were an actual reason to not choose b, the best choice is likely neither.
I understand the argument that “she is struggling” but the moment they make their struggle your struggle they are choosing to spread the pain rather than deal with it. This is never acceptable in a parent child relationship, more so if the child is a minor.
The relationship is the problem.
Calculating the levenshtein distance is the first thing that comes to mind, then creating a regular expression that covers any leaked passwords tied to the same account.
This is all easily scriptable and two leaked passwords might be all a script needs to discover the pattern. Once the pattern is known, all of their passwords become knowable.
People try and use commas for this sort of clarification and are eviscerate for it.
With these sort of math problems, the rules are taught early and then all subsequent math is written in an unambiguous form.
Language has the oddity of going the other way around where the rules get more complex as a display for advanced skills.
Anyone on Facebook that attempts to answer this or engage within its comments has already failed the test.
It’s only recording screens within the app. This sounds like an analytics tools. Any webpage can do this, common usage is click tracking.
That’s the well know and obvious half. The more interesting part is how they mistake empathy with a sign that someone doesn’t “have theirs”
A sociopath is able understand other people have emotions and can learn to fake them.
The right wing ideology does not require them to fake it and it really feels like this is being enabled by the safety net that society as a whole has become, not the capitalist monetary one but the one we’re all don’t reject people who feed off of the social order.
Basically, there is a reasons these people cannot accept socialism. On some subconscious level they know they would only be able to draw from it but not be able to contribute and that this would out them as exploiters of the social value.
Not sure how well I am describing this but I believe that in past times these people would have been outcasts at best but more likely would have been been unalived as a defense mechanism and the historical record supports this.
They don’t “get it” because they only care for themselves and cannot comprehend that any other way of thinking exists.
This issue isn’t what would happen to the firefighter, it’s what would happen to the cop.
If you watch the video the issue is if the cop can claim qualified immunity to prevent themselves from being held accountable for violating the firefighters rights.
No prosecutor would fuck with the firefighter because no jury would convict.
Misconstruing how language works isn’t an argument for what an existing and established word means.
I’m sure that argument made you feel super clever but it’s nonsense.
I sourced by definition from authoritative sources. The fact that you didn’t even bother to verify that or provide an alternative authoritative definition tells me all I need to know about the value in further discussion with you.