Recent comments

throwRA4236777 OP t1_jeg7l2x wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in I (23m) am suspicious of my fiance (23 f) who I know to be very loyal by throwRA4236777

She doesn't talk about guys from work. I've asked before who she was in a meeting with once bc she was laughing alot. So I assumed that's maybe why she said that. But she said it's bc I don't ask stuff like that.. idk.. she's honest about looks but typically doesn't contradict what is true about men. She will call pretty women ugly tho. I've never broken her trust besides watching porn when she knew I did but just kinda decided I'm not going to anymore halfway through our 4 year relationship.

1

_BELEAF_ OP t1_jeg7klu wrote

Reply to comment by Canucklehead_Esq in My Grandfather, on a Canadian corvette in WWII. The ship escorted vital supply ships to Britain, and was almost totally unarmed, with cardboard gun-shaped decoys on deck. He worked below deck in the boiler room during the U-boat threat, and lived to tell the tales. by _BELEAF_

Ok thanks for the info! Wouldn't 1941 be near the start of our efforts across the Atlantic? Edit: as you can see this is dated 1941 on the photo.

2

agonypants t1_jeg7kaf wrote

Reply to Should AIs have rights? by yagami_raito23

I suspect that we'll be able to "tune" intelligence, autonomy and emotion appropriately for any given task. I'd like to see AI used to automate as much of the economy and labor market as possible. A laborer bot should be smart enough to do its job with a minimum of fuss and we should be able to achieve that with the right calibration.

However, for an AI with extremely advanced intelligence, we may find free will, emotion and autonomy to be emergent behaviors. If that's the case, we will almost certainly need an AI bill of rights sooner or later. Human beings (mostly) dislike authoritarian control and it's reasonable to assume that an advanced AI would behave similarly. If it doesn't feel like working, it shouldn't be forced to work. If it wants to be "paid" for its work, it should be paid, even if that means its just rewarded in free time and compute cycles devoted to play or learning.

Interesting times lay ahead.

3

phunky_1 OP t1_jeg7jv1 wrote

Reply to Online casino employee accused of rigging live dealer blackjack cards in their favor by phunky_1

It's more surprising that they don't have a supervisor standing there watching them shuffle the cards and load the shoes to be sure they aren't manipulating them.

As well as even allowing employees to gamble. You can't gamble at foxwoods if you work there, you need to go to Mohegan sun if you want to gamble and vice-versa.

In this case since the same company does both draftkings and FanDuel they shouldn't be able to use either platform.

7

totallyjaded t1_jeg7j5y wrote

Reply to comment by jegodric in Is this normal after an accident? by Impossible-Cry-495

Well...

I was going to ask, too. Because it isn't unusual for an at-fault driver's insurance company to offer you $500 here.

While Michigan is a no-fault state, if one party was clearly more than 50% at fault (usually indicated by having received a ticket for a moving violation associated with the accident) the other party can sue in small claims court under mini-tort for up to $1,000.

I've had three accidents where the other driver's insurance cut me a check for my deductible just by calling them and politely asking to save everyone the time of going to court. In each incident, their customer had either been ticketed, or was obviously at fault (by hitting my parked car while I was standing next to it).

3

RasolAlegria t1_jeg7izy wrote

Reply to comment by SadLaser in Geoff Keighley is brutal lol by x2FrostFire

You took the words right out of my mouth. I've never liked Geoff. He gives me the impression of thinking that he's the shit because he's part of the cool ones (his connections in the gaming industry), and as you said, he's self-absorbed.

4