I hate this headline (not blaming submitter). Police incompetence and negligence jailed her for months and left her stranded in a North Dakota winter. The AI is no more responsible than the cars and airplanes they used.
Edit: this is in reference to the original headline "AI error jails innocent grandmother for months in North Dakota fraud case" not the revised title that it was changed to.
Your picking apart the words doesn't matter if police are more incompetent with AI than without it. AI being the catalyst to a worse society is a more interesting and worthwhile topic than whether "AI is responsible" is the right way to phrase it.
If you make the AI software, then your software malfunctioned.
If the laser printer screws up a page in the middle of the document, and the user doesn't catch it and includes it in the board of directors binder, the laser printer still malfunctioned.
Sure, and if the headline had been that it misidentified an innocent person I wouldn't have had a problem, it's specifically saying the AI jailed her that I think is a dangerous framing by removing police responsibility. In the same way in your example I wouldn't say "Laser Printer gives bad presentation"
If it didn't erase accountability, how would it create any value?
Many people are treating this as a matter of philosophy, which it isn't.
At a primitive, physiological level if you delegate to AI and most of the time you don't get in trouble for it, the resulting relationship you have with the AI could only be called "trust".
If you're expected to be 40% more productive at your job, your employer is making it crystal clear that you will trust the AI or you will be fired. Even if nobody ever said it, the sales pitch is that AI does the work and people are mostly there to be their servants whose role is to keep them fed with decisions we want made but don't want to be responsible for making.
The value is creates is obvious: finding a needle in a haystack. Is accountability laundering another potential benefit? Sure. Can we stop pretending we don't understand understand the other side of it? Cynicism is nice and all but after a certain point it eventually wraps around and makes us look naive.
The thing I feel like is really important to remember whenever thinking about the world and demographics is that most people are Asian. As in more people live in Asia then outside of it. Conversely when a headline or something mentions Asia, it is rare they actually mean the majority of the continent or people living there.
My favorite is when people say they like "asian cuisine" or "asian food". China alone has several distinct cuisines. Why do we act like this is a monolithic concept?
Because there was a lot of cultural cross-contamination between these countries, there is a huge overlap in ingredients due to climate similarities and trade between neighboring countries.
I group European & American food into their respective groups as well.
> Asia rolls out 4-day weeks, WFH to solve fuel cris...
Makes no sense, same with "I'm in a mood for asian food"
> Makes no sense, same with "I'm in a mood for asian food"
Thai, Japanese, Vietnamese, Indian food / cuisine even thought different is more probably closer to each other same like e.g. Polish and Spanish is closer to each other than to most other asian cuisine.
Asian countries developed with more overlap in basic ingredients, cooking techniques, and historical influence networks than Europe did. Historically there were 3 influence zones in Asia. There is a lot of pickling, fermenting, salting, drying. In Asia of these techniques were more or less unified. Fish sauces from different countries are Pepsi vs Coca-Cola level of difference.
> Polish and Spanish is closer to each other than to most other asian cuisine.
I'd say Polish has a lot of similarities with Asian cuisine. Sure, both have stews and sausages, but flavor profiles are very different: acidic vs sour.
I won't be able to tell difference between gyoza & wonton if they shaped the same, but surely I can tell difference between ravioli & uszka. Uszka is IMO closer to any dumpling from Asia than to anything European.
Those were brought to them most likely by China in one way or another.
> Yes, a filled pasta is a very different thing from dumpling,
You saying it like a filled pasta and a dumpling isn't the same twist on "filling encased in thin dough".
> There is nothing in South Asian cuisine similar to sashimi or to soy heavy stir fries.
Dish is ingredients and method. Stir-frying is a Chinese technique (technically multiples, but all originated in China). Ingredients get replaces all the time for various reasons. You're telling me Poriyal is not close relative to the OG stir-fry?
I'm not sure how you arrive at that opinion. Take the example of Punjabi food. It's heavily based around ghee and dairy. Does anything in Thai cuisine use butter except European style pastries?
The only major similarities I see uniting the national cuisines you listed (not regional ones) are things like curries and rice. The former arrived in Japan with European influence (where it's also common in colonial countries) and the latter isn't a feature common to all Asian cuisines (e.g. Mongolian).
American food = contains corn (maize), in all its glorious (ex. nixtamalized, unprocessed, flour, etc.) and unholy (ex. high fructose corn syrup) forms.
Oddly enough, many Canadians use the word "American" to refer to Unitedstatesians, so presumably they'd use it to describe cuisine that same way (as in, poutine is Canadian but disco fries are American). This is extremely analogous to the Asia conversation, in that of course people know the term comes from the continental scale, but using that scale is less common, so it must be specifically invoked.
And then you've got Puerto Ricans, who are definitely US'ian but eat more like the non-US'ian Americans, so who knows what they would think of if you ask about American food, but it wouldn't surprise me if Contiguousunitedstatesian is the default (i.e., the same cuisine the Canadians would be referring to).
There's plenty of European food without potatoes and tomatoes. And even then, incorporating ingredients originally native to the Americas doesn't really mean "importing American food".
"American" is as broad as Asian and even more annoying. I ate some great food in Surinamese restaurants, but I'm guessing that's not what you meant by using that word.
The same goes for "European", Nordic cousine is very different than the Balkan cousine, which is very different than the Iberian cousine and so on.
When someone outside of America thinks of American food, do you think they will think of Cajun gumbo, TexMex, Clam Chowder, or something you'd find on the menu at McDonalds?
>When someone outside of America thinks of American food, do you think they will think of Cajun gumbo, TexMex, Clam Chowder, or something you'd find on the menu at McDonalds?
Statistically this random non-american is some sort of Asian. Therefore the answer is finger lickin good.
In vulgar American English, "Asia" mostly just refers to the wider Confuciosphere + some parts of Central Asia (though rarely thought about.) Most Americans will look at you funny if you call Pakistan or Jordan Asian, because that's not how we use the word.
> China alone has several distinct cuisines. Why do we act like this is a monolithic concept?
When someone is talking about "Chinese food", they almost certainly are talking about the cuisine established by Chinese immigrants in their country, not food as it exists within China. This isn't unique to China.
More American vulgarism fun facts, "Chinese" wasn't pan-Chinese until somewhat recently. It pretty much exclusively meant Cantonese outside of very specific contexts, like geopolitics. This changed slowly starting in the 1970s, but emphasis on slowly and it still persists in interesting ways today.
Asian can also have different meanings in different places. If you say someone is Asian in Britain it means South Asian, whereas in the US it seems to mean East Asian.
And I doubt the contents of any of those menus are particularly close to what you'd find in the countries they claim to be from. It's really more like "Asian-inspired."
We hosted an exchange student for a few weeks, and he was from Nanjing. Before he left the country, we took him to a Chinese restaurant and warned him that it was likely going to be more like American-Chinese.
He went through the menu and pointed out the dishes which were authentic and those which were not. I was surprised at how many were actually authentic -- it was about half of the menu. Maybe we were at a more authentic Chinese restaurant, as the menu was in both English and Chinese.
He was a great kid, and I really enjoyed the experience. He loved peanut butter and jelly, had to spit out ranch dressing, and did not care at all for pumpkin pie.
There's also the question of authentic/traditional to which part of china, in particular in cases where dishes with the same name aren't made the same. But beyond that, just because there's a dish on the menu one recognizes from their homeland doesn't mean it's prepared the same.
Authentic places certainly exist. That's not generally the sort of place that has menus covering multiple countries, though.
There are also places where they can make stuff like home, but usually won't. They might have made "proper" stuff owing to the presence of your exchange student.
Authentic places often also want to server groups of people with varying tastes and expectations so IME even there you of then have parts of the menu dedicated to other vaguely related cuisines.
When Asians use the term, we usually use it to loosely mean "my home cuisine and other cuisines that share similar characteristics"
When my wife or I say "I feel like eating something Asian today" it usually means spicy-Chinese adjacent, i.e. served hot, vegetables fully cooked, heavy on flavor, paired with either rice or freshly made noodles.
Korean qualifies, Sichuan food qualifies, Thai food qualifies, Indian food maybe sort of borderline qualifies on some days but only if we haven't eaten it recently.
We don't usually mean Japanese food when we say that. That's just our mutual understanding of what we call "Asian food". Yeah, I guess we unapologetically kicked Japan out of culinary Asia :) It doesn't matter. The system works for us. We don't dislike Japanese food, but we'll say "Japanese food" when we feel like having Japanese food.
Another Asian family from a different part of Asia probably uses the term to refer to a different subset of Asian cuisines.
Like just about everything else in Asia, it's a fluid term that means different things to different people. I've only ever seen people in the west be pendantic about terms like this. I also think of it as a very western ideology to want to have a term have a singular global definition.
It's similar to how people say "Europe does this or that". Basically the part of their thoughts dedicated to that part of the world is so small that all they can afford is a tiny box, and everything has to go in there, reality be damned.
Not really, it's not sovereign. The EU can pass laws that each European country chooses to implement. If they don't implement enough EU laws, they can get kicked out, which means more pieces of paper are written and some European countries might choose to afford them less privileges.
No. EU laws are of two kinds: directives and regulations. Directives work roughly as you describe, while regulations have direct effect like regular laws.
Those countries may also ratify EU laws if they wish. I think the UK has something similar to GDPR and Switzerland also picks and chooses which laws it thinks make sense.
I was watching some travel show on PBS, which I can't recall the name of. They were going through Egypt and met up with a guy from the area who walked them through getting the local food.
So much of what they had looked the same as the food that you could find in Greece, but they were fiercely adamant that it was both different and better.
Because much of the Asian food the average American will come across isn’t necessarily identifiable to a specific region or country in Asia, or is a blend of various Asian cuisines.
Or they are broadly referring to the various cuisines of Asia as a singular group, because unless you’re very familiar with those cuisines, they may see broadly similar.
Because some places didn’t get immigration or even access to imported products. Being small town in Lithuania I didn’t even tried pizza until late 90s, chinese 2000s and indian probaly 2010s. There’s still like less than 5 Indian restaurants in country and probably none korean, etc.
Also things like asian fusion can evolve independently.
That's always been a weird one for me. If I might quote Gemini's summary since it seems accurate enough:
> Geographical/Historical: The Bosporus Strait in Turkey is historically considered the dividing line between Europe (West) and Asia (East).
> Prime Meridian: The 0° longitude line running through Greenwich, England, is used to technically separate the Eastern and Western Hemispheres.
> Cultural/Political: Cultural definitions are often more relevant, placing countries like Australia, New Zealand, and North America in the "West" due to historical ties, despite their geographic location.
I suppose you're leaning into the "Bosporus Strait" option more than the "Prime Meridian" option, given that the former would put most of Europe in the West while the latter would put most of it in the East.
Because that is how it's presented to "us". If the cuisine that we could access where we live was more diverse, we would think differently about the entire set (which is not happening for another set of entirely good reasons, but alas.)
>" Why do we act like this is a monolithic concept?"
Under "we" you mean white / the westerners? Because the majority of us do not give a flying fuck about other parts of the world. Not important enough. One can easily see how our media reacts to tragedies on one one side comparatively to the other.
As for food. I live in Toronto and can clearly distinguish between quite a few different "Asian" cuisines.
>I now believe China’s actual population may be as low as 300–400 million
that we now live in a world where people are confident enough to make claims this stupid in front of a camera should frighten anyone.
Some basic logic, if China had the population of the United States it would have magically acquired the per capita economic output of the US in ~30 years, consume several times the energy and food it imports and somehow have produced several cities the size of Tokyo. The fact that China produces ~50% of the world's ships and has the manufacturing output of of the G7 combined is impressive with over a billion people, but hey they must have some space age technology to do it with 3% of the world's population!
In philosophy there's a concept called the coherence theory of truth, if you want to know if something is true check if it doesn't defy basic logic or other facts you know, great tool instead of believing what youtubers say
because that would mean virtually every place in the country would look like Singapore, it would be significantly richer ,per capita, than Taiwan, millions of economic migrants would have left the country for no reason, and I suppose also be conjured out of thin air given that the Chinese diaspora is about 40 million people large. Which is shockingly enough comparable to Indians abroad, not Americans
Youtube videos are always a poor quality source - the UN doesn’t accept China’s numbers exactly but they believe the total number is broadly correct due to cross referenced data, and expert independent demographers largely agree. The figure of 1.4 billion is likely within the ballpark and the idea that this is off by hundreds of millions is considered a fairly fringe theory, almost a conspiracy theory.
Yeah this seems as clear cut a case as you could want. That doesn't automatically mean Google is going to get held liable but if any case would result in it this one will.
"Some argue this blurriness unfairly implicates those who were simply mentioned in the files. I take the opposite view: It unfairly protects those who abused minors." This seems like a weird distinction to make, and the fact that he sees these as being in conflict kind of ruins the article for me. For instance Ro Khanna revealed six names of people in the Epstein files but then it turned out four of them had just had their photos used in a photo lineup and had no other connection (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/13/four-men-unr...) so obviously yes, there are some perfectly innocent people in the files. Then later in the article he says "There’s a solution to the Epstein problem, and it’s called a perp walk. It doesn’t matter what we get them for, but someone very rich and very famous needs to be seen in handcuffs. It could be Gates, it could be Dershowitz, it could be Clinton, it could be Summers, I don’t really care." Which once again is missing the point, assuming that anyone mentioned there is guilty and worthy of punishment of a public shaming. And while honestly I wouldn't be upset if any of these famous men were shamed that way, the fact remains that's not how justice works. He sees a problem, a lack of justice for these crimes and then instead of coming to the solution as being that we need justice, which includes trials and the presumption of innocence, that we just need to start punishing at random. That not only is a failure of justice, but it also isn't a good deterrent and I think will ultimately fail to accomplish his goals.
Isn’t it amazing how the conspiracy of “elites running a pedophile ring and controlling the world” was all the rage not that long ago?
Yet now that we have actual documents that say exactly that, somehow it becomes stupid to talk about it, because it turns out that your team was behind it the whole time? Can’t we all just move on already?
We live in an era where the Western social contract is breaking down and the wealthy collect more money and power to themselves than ever before. We should care about Epstein and consequences for illegal activities done by the rich and famous. Justice must be seen to be done. We need it for social cohesion.
People in places like this generally don't feel the need to condemn Hamas because it's understood that they are bad. Hamas is not an ally of the United States, it's troops and police force don't train with the United States military, it does not buy weapons from United States factories, and it does not receive government aid from the United States. If you feel the need to, you can add a condemnation of Hamas to basically every post here and it'll be accurate. Hell if you want to add a condemnation to the Iranian and North Korean governments too while you're there, that'd be fine too.
> The people I don't agree with are too stupid to understand what they are supporting.
That is lazy thinking, and your claim is unsubstantiated.
That doesn't move a discussion towards a better understanding of each other, it fosters division.
Maybe Brad Bondi is the most skilled lawyer in town. It's certainly not in the interest of the clients to have any material knowledge otherwise, nor for it to be revealed to them.
It is, however, in the interest of the American public not to have a corrupt justice system. Thus, we should not rely on far fetched assumptions instead of investigating corruption where it appears.
It likely is nepotism (and maybe bribery depending on your definition, but very unlikely to meet the legal bar of bribery), but I'm not sure what about the GP's comment makes it so obviously clear to you that it is both of those things.
is it doesn't meet the legal bar for bribery, it's only because the supreme Court has made most forms of bribary legal (presumably to prevent Thomas from being arrested for taking lots of bribes)
It’s now clear why Melinda wanted to distance herself and start clear of him for a while —they get along enough to work on the foundation but she wanted out of the marriage pretty quick once she found out he’d been involved in “something”.
Bill Gates has always been a lecher. He was a well known womanizer in his early Microsoft years and I believe he has cheated on Melinda a few times too. This behavior seems par for the course.
I had one of his books from ages ago and it had a long bit on the end about affirmations and his weird views on quantum physics and the ability of human mind to manipulate them.
I read his blog every now and then. He was cheering and celebrating the technical aspects of Trump's manipulative language... with no regard for its impact.
It’s one thing to, say, acknowledge and respect the cleverness of a villain succeeding by pulling a trick and then deconstruct the trick.
It’s a totally different thing when you go beyond mere respect/acknowledgement and start incessantly praising the villain’s cleverness, professing your love for the villain, worshipping the villain, publicly fantasizing about having hot sex with the villain, etc.
Adams at first was vaguely alluding to do the first thing, but testing the waters showed him which side of the sandwich was buttered, and he went fully with the second.
Edit: this is in reference to the original headline "AI error jails innocent grandmother for months in North Dakota fraud case" not the revised title that it was changed to.