Venezuela has accused Donald Trump of making a “colonialist threat” after he said the airspace around the country should be considered closed.
The country’s foreign ministry called Trump’s comments “another extravagant, illegal and unjustified aggression against the Venezuelan people”.
The US does not legally have the authority to close another country’s airspace, but Trump’s online post could lead to travel uncertainty and deter airlines from operating there.
If the prediction markets weren’t all owned by Trump and his cronies I would bet that boots go on the ground whatever day they are supposed to turn over the files.
I’m ignorant of the culture and structure of these markets still.
Would the market have to set up a bet for this? Can you propose it? How would it work?
It’s unregulated bookies. You would be better off betting a stranger in a pub.
It’s fully regulated to bet on politics of other countries, we don’t all live in the USA
Its like 90% timing of politics too. So since they are all either owner by Trump and his inner circle or are friends with them they can just call Trump up to delay or accelerate something a day of the odds get too lopsided.
There’s Bookmakers, who are professionals responsible for estimating likelihood of events using maths
But they can become corrupted, or simply told “you’re not allowed to accept bets on this subject, ever, or lose your license”
Sounds familiar.
Ew, AI slop
You DO know that Asimov’s Foundation series has been around for at least 70 years now, giving humans plenty of time to make fancy posters and cover art?
Bluntly, your type of “Ew, AI slop”, is dumb and disingenuous. It became an excuse to hate stuff, no matter the merits, context, or source.
Yes I’m aware the book series is from the 50s, it’s excellent.
But the image is AI slop. It’s very clear of that. Have a look at the letters around the edge, they blur and artefact in a way no human would do, and the same generic overly rendered hair that they always have in AI slop.
I’m on about the ugly-ass image, which is very very clearly made by AI.
Another telltale sign is inconsistent level of detail, stuff like a heavily rendered background element right next to a loosely rendered foreground element, something humans would never do.
If you don’t see it, I dunno what to tell you.
And you fail to explain whatever it is that makes it AI, let alone why that would be a bad thing. It is on anti-AI people to prove that their beliefs have merit. Careless speculation such as yours is irresponsible, unjust, and is pretty damn likely to hurt real people.
You are welcome to dislike AI - but using that as a crutch for falsified criticism is just plain wrong.
I don’t usually engage with trolls, but my train is late and I’m all out of productive things to do while I wait.
I am not going to debate whether this is AI. If you want to believe it isn’t, you’re welcome to do that. As for why it’d be bad - I believe that a technology that is trained on the work of many artists, without permission or compensation, that puts control of visual - I am not going to call them artistic - outputs under the control of a few tech oligarchs, is bad, and should be boycotted and sabotaged if possible. Even open weight models are, ultimately, usually trained by large corporations, and openly available by their ‘benevolence’. If they decide their next generation model will be closed source, it will be.
I also believe that the sheer amount of both monetary, and physical, resources currently expended on generative AI and related technologies is largely wasted, in a world where we can hardly afford such waste.
Also, please substantiate why using rather clear signifiers of ai generated content to claim something is ai generated is likely to cause harm, and why, in your eyes, ‘pro-ai’ aren’t required to proof the merit of their believes.
Oh, and while we’re at it - do you happen to know whether there is a seahorse emoji?
I’ve explained to you, read that