I was thinking more like the expectation we used to have that the police didn’t just start shouting in a surprise ambush. For example, the U.S. navy knew that the ship was unarmed and returning from an event hosted by the Indian government which the U.S. had also participated in, that it was attempting to dock rather than attack, and that even fully loaded it posed an insignificant threat, so there’s an argument that the Navy could have one of their thousands of aircraft to give them the opportunity to surrender or evacuate before the boat was sunk. We did that for actual Nazis, who posed far more of a peer-level threat than Iran does.
The ship posed the only plausible threat, not the sailors.
> there’s an argument that the Navy could have one of their thousands of aircraft to give them the opportunity to surrender or evacuate before the boat was sunk. We did that for actual Nazis
I think there is absolutey an argument that good decorum would have provided a nearby surface vessel to assist with rescue. But not being nice in a war isn't the same as a war crime. And expanding the notion of war criminality to cover even breaches of decorum fundamentally waters down a term that has already started being seen as meaningless because people want to make it apply to any act of war.
No, but the U.S. navy has more than a single submarine. Given the vast power differential and the fact that they knew the ship was unarmed having participated in the same International Fleet Review exercise, there’s an argument that, say, an aircraft radio message giving them an opportunity to surrender first.
The “shot across the bow” phrase comes from a relevant naval tradition, such as when the U.S. Navy captured ships from far more serious threats like Nazi Germany:
Looking through that article, one of the examples is "The wife of a conservative politician was sentenced to 31 months in prison for what police said was an unacceptable post."
"The wife of a Conservative councillor has been jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire."
This is pretty clear incitement to violence.
The UK has problems, but it's not very useful to throw all of these cases together to make a big number, it really rather undermines the point.
(edit - looking at the video posted in a sibling comment is enlightening. The number actually convicted of anything is around ~400 and this includes a lot of direct incitement to violence, stalking and all sorts. Which are similarly illegal in the US. The US right-wing talking points are as usual a load of crap.
None of which is to say I think the UK has things right, and that number of arrests is clearly a problem in itself, but as usual the "OH MY GOD look at what's happening over there! Muh free speech!" from the US commenters is hypocritical and myopic)
In this podcast episode[0] he does talk about this kind of model and how it "learns about physics" through experience instead of just ingesting theorical material.
The way I see it, the "world models" he wants to train require a magnitude more compute than what LLM training requires since physical data is likely much more unstructured than internet data.
He raised $1b but that seems way too little to buy enough compute to train.
My bet is that OpenAI or Anthropic or both will eventually train the model that he always wanted because they will use revenue from LLMs to train a world model.
I meant during the two world wars, which should have been obvious. The idea you think I know what NYC is but forgot about 9/11 says more about you than I.
Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. If that was the point you were attempting it is incorrect. Not even the current administration is attempting that line of reasoning.
I'm kinda shocked to see MicroCenter surge again. The one on Steven's Creek feels like a mini, less seedy, Fry's (I may be biased from Fry's terminal years).
Nevertheless, it still took me 10 minutes to get the attention of the otherwise omnipresent salespeople to let me pick up a UCG, and I ended up getting the rest of my setup at Central Computers.
Edit: I'm ragging too hard. I'm glad MicroCenter exists and the in-person selection they offer.
Fred Sanford owned a small business and lived in Los Angeles in an era when the majority of African Americans were working unskilled wage jobs [0] and overwhelmingly living in the South.
He and Lamont were middle and upper-middle class by African American standards as was seen in the 1970 Negro (the then term for African Americans) Census by the the US Department of Commerce.
And by overall American standards back then they would have probably been around the 50th to 60th percentile of households by income and would have been earning at least 60% than their racial peers in the South at the exact same time.
If you go through US Census data from 1970 - almost a decade after the Civil Rights Act was passed - it is harrowing. Now imagine how much worse it was before that.
reply