CornwallFox

I think it would be good. Every week knowing you might not see the same clowns as the week before. A bit like when you used to watch a reserve match and A.Trialist would be on the team sheet.

Can we just close the transfer section of foxestalk down? For a while now our transfer business has been nothing but depressing. Think it might be good for us all if we just pretend it's not happening.

Background as a wind up merchant with a post limit, mainly.

Since reform appeared they do. Much lesser effect historically on the right. The centre left and left combined vote it's pretty much always bigger than the right/centre right vote. Not always by huge margins, Brexit was the one anomaly in recent years. So maybe slightly centre left would be fair.

Don't be daft. Using human sentence structures, syntax etc when a few beeps would do makes a big difference. We're talking about machines communicating, obviously it's quicker when they create something bespoke. In most applications involving communication it's actively encouraged. Take the tin foil hat off.

Polling suggests Labour and greens splitting well over 50% of the vote between them. Much the same as national politics week you include the lib Dems. The only thing that gives right wing parties power is the fact the left splits itself up more. We're a country of left wingers that constantly have right wing governments.

Why would you want to keep up with it? The whole point of AI is it can go faster than we can. We actively want it to think and communicate in more efficient and effective ways. Do we need guardrails through programming? Yes. But I'm not convinced what you've shown is an issue.

That would be fine, I'd be happy for them to put it that way and think collaboratively about how we could move forward differently, but there's a real nastiness that pervades in the way they talk about those that are culturally different - however small the cultural difference - not just ethnicity, colour, religion, nationality, but it's always the same people putting up laughing emojis when a cyclist is killed, complaining about teacher's holidays, shouting about cancel culture when somebody inciting violence is jailed before screaming that the BBC should be taken off air...... They basically hate everybody that isn't themselves.

He's not though. Daka is an awful footballer. We only have awful strikers. We have awful most things. There's a reason we got twenty something points in the premier League, we have terrible players. Ferguson or Guardiola would struggle to keep this lot in the championship this year.

They literally list harder to collaborate with humans as a negative. AI does this whenever it's left to 'talk' to other AI as it makes zero sense to speak in English when they can create shorthand languages they understand that get the job done far more efficiently. I'm not saying there's no reason to oversee AI, I'm simply saying that what was shown just looks like a scare story when in reality this is exactly what you want AI to do.

They're not creating languages to obfuscate humans. They use non human languages because they aren't human and it's quicker. They're programmed to do just that.

What's the concern exactly? Don't we want AI fixing problems? If you don't view it through the lens of the terminator's skynet, it's bots noting problems which other bots could fix it they were linked.

The worth of it is how much stuff you can buy with it. There would still be a finite amount of stuff and so prices would still be dictated by liquidity. No different to now. Right now it makes no difference where your money came from it still has a value relative to what you can buy with it.

Just a difference of opinion my friend. I get where you're coming from, he's a senior professional now, but I just don't think he helps us win football matches. Good at recovering the call maybe but then unable to use it, even with simple passes. Think I'd rather change the system.

There is no world in which I will ever put Hamza in a line up I'm hoping for.

The value of money comes from what you can buy with it, not what it took to get.

The 'predictions' you've read about haven't come from scientists. They've come from the media spinning the most extreme extrapolations of any theory they've spotted to sell papers. They haven't been serious studies that have produced those scare stories. Real science is slow, calculated, tested, and sober. It produces models that utilise a huge array of variants and predict outcomes based on varying inputs. What we are seeing through real world observation is that even the worst realistic outcomes shown via climate models are underplaying what is observed - climate change in the real world is happening even faster than 'predicted'. While it's quite easy to question that sitting in the temperate UK or swathes of temperate US, there are countless stories of hugely unusual weather patterns and outcomes across the globe - in Pakistan an area bigger than the whole UK under water, in China two months above 40°. When the UK hit 40° two or three years ago that single thing wasn't expected for another 50 years. The reality is that the same scientists that have produced studies showing the long term changes to temperature and environment - so often cited by climate change deniars - are the same ones that have been equally careful on concluding that human caused climate change is a real and existential threat that is already with us. Genuinely, within 15 years I don't think anybody will question this stuff any more.

Thought experiment: AI and robotics remove the need for humanity to do any work. Everything we need grown or built by robots and overseen by AI. Instead, we give people money and they have all the free time they want to use that money to do what interests them. Pros and cons?

Feel like there's gotta be a few hundred Spanish pesetas lying around at my parents' house somewhere.

Fantastic news!

The better the quality the stronger and longer lasting the smell. A good perfum will last a long time as opposed to a eau de toilette which is a much lower concentration. Anyway, favourite smelly is Spice Bomb Extreme by Viktor and Rolf.

Cheers @kenny, appreciate your responses.

No idea why but my response has led to this - note to moderator, I'd be grateful if you could let this post as I really don't understand what the issue is. I've had post limits and now this despite filling my question with caveats to now read it as an attack. It's really bizarre.

I'm going to cut them some slack for RvN as that looked an exciting appointment at the time. Could easily have gone differently and in hindsight how much did the players cause that season rather than the managers?

Can I ask a genuine question? This is going to come across potentially as an attack but I'm trying to work out whether there's any truth in what I sometimes think, from somebody in the industry. So I'd be grateful if you look beyond what you might perceive as a bit attacking your profession as I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts. It's just, I see guys doing basic building jobs earning amounts most graduates will never achieve. I see building companies sitting on swathes of land and only building an amount that allows prices to remain high. I see a wish to maximise profits on every home - which is how the private sector works in all industries so that isn't novel. I see charges for upkeep in the form of ground rent. I see really, really poorly built new builds across the country. So my question, bearing in mind I've said all the above without any real knowledge of the industry so I'm willing to listen if I'm wrong - is any of the above good for the country? Given we need more housing built, should we trust private sector building firms to actually build quality housing at a fair price?