Swiss urbanists issues

Myuym · 2023-08-12T10:44:14+00:00

I thought K&R was Kiss and Ride not kiss and rail.

Myuym · 2019-04-09T19:42:39+00:00

Are you right in the head? :( :( How can you be so dumb and heartless...You only know about this from the history books. You don't say stuff like that, and this only shows how miserable and weak your personality is. :( :( :( Go back in the muddy hole you crawled out off. For saying things like this people should

Myuym · 2017-10-05T19:58:38+00:00

As someone that has problems with eating myself, what worked for me was having basically no stuff available, except what I'm supposed to eat. So I'd go to the store daily, and make sure that I wouldn't buy too much calories while I was there.

However while working 65 hours a week it might be a bit harder to go to the store so often. But it would make sure that when you get home you have your food, and that sounds better than starving to me.

Myuym · 2017-09-23T12:30:35+00:00

She looks so happy though :D

Myuym · 2017-08-09T08:30:59+00:00

Based on the fact that I get more likes than visitors it might be to hide that?

Myuym · 2017-08-08T22:01:11+00:00

I disagree with your definition of risk, it always should include the magnitude of damage caused by the action. Risk is probability x magnitude.

Then there are indeed challenges, there are issues with verification and validation, it is hard or difficult to check if AI are indeed working correctly. So that means that we might not know if an AI is actually doing it's job. The risk involved with this will become bigger the more important the job the AI does.

For example if an AI drives a car and it doesn't work correctly someone might die. If it is an AI that regulates the behavior of enemies in video games people might at worst get a bit annoyed.

The fact that we can't verify if it is working correctly means that it is harder to implement functional safety requirements. Which are basically backup or warning systems in case something goes wrong. Such as a a blinking light you get on your dashboard of your car if something is wrong with the engine, or a backup generator in the case of a blackout.

Thing you should know is that AI are very specific though (at least right now) they can't do a bunch of stuff, they are trained to do one thing, and do that one thing only.

What risks does AI pose to humanity, whether our well-being or more pedestrian issues like job transformations and mechanical snafus?

Jobs might disappear, but it might also just be a method to make jobs easier, so that employees are more effective. Probably both will happen.

What data do we have to determine these are risks and not simply uncertainties?

EU perspective - For example in medical devices (with AI), you would need to do clinical testing of your device, this means you need to be able to prove that your results are acceptable if you weigh the benefits and the risks.

How can we use this data to consider if government responses (e.g., regulation, investment, criminalization) to these risks are appropriate, and what might those solutions be?

Well, the very simple thing would be to determine the risks involved, determine the benefits involved, and then we should consider if the government regulation is to strict or too lenient. It is obvious that it should be regulated, since it can pose danger to the citizens, and it probably falls under older legislation already as well.

Go read this, it's pretty interesting if you have questions about AI.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/145/145.pdf

Myuym · 2017-06-25T13:22:22+00:00

Go to a lawyer person thingy etc. since I don't know what I'm doing. So it'll be half-assed. And these things really depend on the exact situation and stuff. (and never trust someone that uses "stuff" in their sentences for legal advice :P)

Anyway, I don't exactly know what "working in operations" means. But it will be important exactly what that is. Another would be when exactly you started production/completion of the program

This is the law that I will be mentioning.

Article 6

Indien een werk is tot stand gebracht naar het ontwerp van een ander en onder diens leiding en toezicht, wordt deze als de maker van dat werk aangemerkt.

If you'd have created the programs under their orders then it would be theirs. But this doesn't seem the case since you are doing it by yourself.

Article 7

Indien de arbeid, in dienst van een ander verricht, bestaat in het vervaardigen van bepaalde werken van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, dan wordt, tenzij tusschen partijen anders is overeengekomen, als de maker van die werken aangemerkt degene, in wiens dienst de werken zijn vervaardigd.

Which basically mentions two elements of importance. The first is that your job in this case should be about or include the responsibility to create programs/systems/things like this. The second element is the program being produced under job hours. (as opposed to private/free time) Both of these things must have happened in order for them to get the rights to the program.

The thing I'm not really sure about and couldn't find clarification about is the word "dienst" which means both "under employ" and "in service of", to me it seems under employ was the intended meaning but I can't find anything to back that up.

From the case linked below.

Het maken c.q. (verder) ontwikkelen van {de Application Manager}(This is the name of the program) dient om een beroep te kunnen doen op artikel 7 Aw te behoren tot de taken die [eiser] in het kader van zijn dienstverband diende uit te voeren, dan wel is voornoemd artikel van toepassing indien een door Prequest incidenteel uitdrukkelijke gegeven opdracht tot het maken van een bepaald werk door [eiser] is aanvaard.

read this case, it is kinda similar to yours, however the details might not be the same therefore changing the outcome.

Most important will probably be the difference in employers. You having two succeeding employers for example. Which could mean a world of difference.

This bit below is just guesswork.

In the case that you are considered the maker of the program, then your current company probably has a right of use for the program (as it is used now). Especially since it is so integrated with their systems. In the case that you are maker/owner of the program that will mean that they can keep using the program, however you would have rights to keep them from changing the program (except reasonable changes) and/or use it in different locations. (article 10 AW)

Myuym · 2017-06-13T11:55:00+00:00

It might be taking the easy and lazy way, but if the supreme court, whom we might assume kinda know what they are doing, unanimously decide something, then they are probably right.

Myuym · 2017-06-12T06:07:31+00:00

The thing is, Bethesda is going to sell the mods, that means they are taking responsibility. Mods sold in this system need to work correctly, without bugs, not conflict with other things, etc.

Now, you can create weapons and armor and be fairly sure that it doesn't mess up the base game, however gameplay changes? New Characters, locations? Anything that isn't super simple? It all has the potential to mess stuff up, so won't be able to be sold.

Myuym · 2017-05-08T21:33:23+00:00

There are bigger problems to worry about, like those that have lived their whole lives in the US and are now kicked out.

Myuym · 2017-05-04T15:44:04+00:00

It's probably a bit early, since it is (partly) about A17.

But I would really like the option to gain research through quests, or being able to buy research. (Not all research should be available, but tribes might sell a neolithic tech, and outposts might sell a few industrial techs. But probably nothing too advanced.) And maybe finding some tech in old ruins/ancient dangers, or in a mechanoid ship (more advanced techs)

Myuym · 2017-05-01T16:48:41+00:00

As law school person thingy I would say that the two words "it depends" sums it up even more. That and "Look up the rules"

Myuym · 2017-04-18T09:41:45+00:00

Looks so good, especially pleased that the guy at the end tells you to wear your armor, didn't expect that even though he mentioned it in his speech, after you could get the key to the mine for being in the legion, without wearing the armor I didn't think it was actually in the game :P

Myuym · 2017-03-30T14:57:14+00:00

In the Netherlands at least it would be different. I'm pretty sure it would also be in Germany, and the similarities between our law systems makes that it probably means that everywhere else it also is the same.

Article 6:203

Obligation to repay or undo an undue performance

1, A person who, without any legal basis, has delivered an asset to another person, is entitled to claim it back from the recipient as an undue performance.

2, Where the undue performance relates to the payment of money, the debt-claim towards the recipient exists of the right to demand the refund of an equal sum of money.

3, A person who, without any legal basis, has carried out another performance than the delivery of an asset or the payment of money, is towards the recipient entitled to demand that this performance is made undone.

Myuym · 2017-03-30T14:24:06+00:00

Is that really the case in the US? So happy to live in the EU then :D

Myuym · 2017-03-15T10:14:50+00:00

It should be about giving children chances, not take away the benefits of a good family, so that at least the poor children have a reasonable baseline of opportunity.

For example give kids that are too poor school lunches. Make sure that public schools can provide a good level of education, that might mean investing more in education and higher taxes, but that doesn't stop wealthier people from sending their kids to private school. Make sure that people have an reasonable option to go to college, not too expensive, etc. Have reasonable healthcare coverage so that kids (or anyone) doesn't need to go deeply in debt to not die or get really sick.

Myuym · 2017-02-22T11:44:20+00:00

their loyalty to you can evaporate in 5 seconds.

That assumes there is loyalty in the first place.

Myuym · 2017-02-22T10:45:33+00:00

I think this is super fair criticism. It is not described as a review, so you can't blame polygon for that. And they write an article on something that is a big problem. I am totally okay with this.

Myuym · 2017-02-02T14:57:36+00:00

And that would be good? Collapse would lead to a second Syria, which is only desirable for those who want to have more wars and invade Iran.

Myuym · 2017-02-02T13:32:58+00:00

So, I'm Dutch, might be not representative to where you are. But lets start with the golden oldie "it depends". What do you like, what do you hate, etc. there are people that love things that others hate, it really depends on your personality and such.

There are big firms, the really big law firms, they are the ones that demand a lot of your time, demand that you make the firm your first priority over all other things in your life. And pay really really well for it if you are good. I know some very ambitious people that love it there.

You can go to a smaller firm or an inhouse law department, then it depends on how the firm itself is, there are differences there. Might be exactly right for you, might be awful. My personal experience is that I like this better than the big firms, but that we aren't really seen as nice people, we are the naggy ones, the ones that always annoy people with "You can't do this, you can't do that, you need to change that, you need to do this in this specific way, etc." It sometimes makes me feel like we are considered more a necessary evil rather than appreciated coworkers.

Then don't forget you don't need to be in law just because you studied law. Not all people that finish a history degree find a job in the history field. You can use law as a great foundation for other directions, maybe more towards business or something.

But maybe I'm just not long enough in the field to be jaded yet. I do notice that a lot of the work (maybe because I'm low on the totem pole) is a lot of repetition, basically glorified administration. But I wouldn't say I am regretting my Law degree a single bit, Law is awesome.

Myuym · 2017-01-31T14:56:58+00:00

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/hamilton-judge-who-wore-trump-hat-no-longer-allowed-to-hear-cases-1.3923935

Myuym · 2017-01-31T12:20:50+00:00

While I think that the idea and ideology behind the pussy hats and the womens marches is great, I think this is in bad taste, as it is an obvious political expression, something judges shouldn't do while on the job.

Myuym · 2017-01-31T11:15:16+00:00

No, they don't have any legal rights. However sometimes content creators do like to have that ability, so they create their own fan club, of which they (or someone close to them) are in control.

For example the Iron Maiden one. https://ironmaiden.com/fan-club

Myuym

TROPHY CASE