It is amazing how readily some people believe we target civilians, often based on the words of actual terrorists.
With this particular incident with apparent US strikes on a school adjacent to a military complex, and formerly part of that military complex, you would think it must be obvious to any reasonable person that we did not knowingly target a school.
And if it was an accident it only gives us more reason to oppose the whole operation. Why should we believe what they think they "know" about uranium stocks or anything else, if they couldn't figure out a building has been a school for 10+ years?
I also wonder if they really should have known by the second or third strike, but I can't readily find whether they had a live visual or anything, so probably did not. Arguably you can't in good conscience strike a target you can't see well, but I'm sure it happens all the time and doesn't usually go this bad.
When terrorists like the Trump administration openly admit to it in some cases and threaten to do it in others, and we see the evidence, it’s easy to believe our eyes and ears over your fantasies.
We are so far past there being any merit to “Israel would never knowingly target civilians/children/hospitals/etc” that you just shouldn’t even bother. Just own it, if your leadership thinks the only winning strategy is the annihilation of another people, or at least their complete displacement, own it. Stop trying to hide behind “it was a mistake” while simultaneously showing you have no issues putting a missile through a singular car window to assassinate people labeled an enemy. Nobody buys it anymore.
For planning Operation Epic Fury, the US military utilized the Maven Smart System, an artificial intelligence software designed to streamline the targeting process and greatly reduce the amount of personnel involved in it. Capable of producing 1,000 target packages in one hour, with the use of the system the US military said it had struck 6,000 targets in Iran during the first two weeks of the war.
...it goes on to say...
The [NYT] inquiry suggested that the school was likely targeted due to outdated coordinates provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency
Advanced rockets bolted onto mainframes guided by data from Palantir.
> For what reason would they attack a single school?
Couldn't it be to terrorise the other side while still being able to claim that it was a mistake? Remember that the school was hit by three distinct strikes.
The difference is you can appeal or ignore a game result. If Ukraine lost a strategy game tournament, would they give up their territory? Or fight to hold it still?
Vladimir Putin doesn't dare to indirectly strike through Iran at the sources of fire power production powering suicide drones and targeteering data at Russia. He is too weak.
This seems like the kind of foolishness it takes a lot of money to believe. Anthropic blew up their contract with the Pentagon over concerns on lethal autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. OpenAI rushes in to do what Anthropic wouldn't.
If you think that means your company isn't going to be involved in lethal autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance... I don't really know what to tell you. I doubt you really believe that. Obviously you will be involved in that and you are effectively working on those projects now.
Yes, that’s the point they’re claiming: a median family cannot afford healthcare. Are there any figures in particular asserted by the article that you consider faulty, or merely the conclusion?
"Uh, excuse me. This ad for a payday loan company says the vast majority of households can't afford this thing that most households with children do, in fact, afford and pay for. Which figures do you dispute?"
Concluding something farcical and then asking people to debate it is silly and a waste of time. 400k is an extremely high household income. Childcare is a common expense for families with children. The claim that only extremely high income people can afford a common expense is wrong on its face and needs no further analysis.
Nonsense. There are many ways to get free or reduced price medical care in the US, especially if you are poor. Your doctor will have resources to help you if needed.
You can also rack up huge medical debt and then not pay it. The hospital will sell your debt to bill collectors who will call you for a while, and eventually sue you. At that point you can offer to settle for pennies on the dollar, or you might lose the lawsuit and have to declare bankruptcy which would mean you have negative credit for a few years.
Obviously it will be a difficult time, and hopefully you have something else, but they won't just let you die because you can't afford it.
> There are many ways to get free or reduced price medical care in the US, especially if you are poor.
"In the US" here is a bit misleading because it conflates places where the poor have reliable access to needed healthcare with the places they do not.
> Your doctor will have resources to help you if needed.
This seems presumptuous. More so because we just discussed this and he does not. To be fair, it was expected.
> You can also rack up huge medical debt and then not pay it.
This is a simple declarative statement in the face of a complex issue. It does not (and can not) meaningfully address the required nuances. For example that the medicaid isn't available (red state), that surgery is beyond the scope of the sole social provider (Good Samaritan) or persuading any one of our (rural for-profit) hospitals that non-urgent oncological care should be provided due to EMTALA.
And thru 25yrs of care giving my disabled spouse and 15yrs servicing the medical community, I've learned a bit about what is and isn't available in this place.
Also if you have a low paying job its probably not a big loss to quit it and go on Medicaid if you have a six or seven figure illness. Though it seems like they are trying to change this path for 2027.
If someone is dying of colorectal cancer, trying to get them to worry about their credit score is not only not helpful, it's actively harmful. Messing up your credit for a few years is in the category of "inconvenience" and it's not the kind of thing that you need to worry about when surviving cancer.
You’re right. I am just bitter and angry because I have to get my endoscopy done and I owe my life to my doctoral program that gives me excellent health insurance.
I agree with you that someone who is good with a screen reader can efficiently move through web interfaces. A good screen reader user is faster than the typical user.
However, not all blind people are good with screen readers. For them, an AI assistant would be useful. Even for good screen reader users an AI could be useful.
An example: Yesterday, I needed to buy new valve caps for my car's tires. The screen reader path would be something like walmart -> jump to search field, type "valve cap car tire" and submit -> jump to results section -> iterate through a few results to make sure I'm getting the right thing at a good price -> go to the result I want -> checkout flow. Alternatively, the AI flow would be telling my AI assistant that I need new car tire valve caps. The assistant could then simultaneously search many provider options, select one based on criteria it inferred, and order it by itself.
The AI path, in other words, gets a better result (looking through more providers means it's likelier to find a better path, faster delivery, whatever) and also, much easier and faster. Of course, not only for screen reader users, but also just everyone.
The first email I ever wrote was to Scott Adams. He actually replied!
I was a child and had just read and enjoyed one of his older books, maybe the Dilbert Principle. I came from a religious household and I was surprised by something in the book that revealed him to be an atheist.
I looked up his email, or maybe it was in the back of the book, and wrote him a quick message about how and why he should convert. He replied to me (unconvinced) and I replied back, at which point he realized I was a child and the conversation ended.
When I heard he was dying of cancer I wrote him another email, again offering my own unsolicited thoughts, this time on cancer and experimental treatments. He did not reply, but I thought there was a kind of symmetry to it -- I wrote him towards the start of my life and again towards the end of his.
Interesting guy, I've enjoyed several of his books and the comics for many years. He had a big impact. Tough way to die.
reply