I’m guessing this judge considers the telephone to be an example of negligent design as well. After all, the phone company doesn’t record every phone call I make and disconnect me if I mention an illegal drug.

I hate to argue against you because I agree that nobody needs a hundred round clip or full auto for an intruder, but the forefathers’ intended right wasn’t “people should have muskets”. It was much closer to “the people should be armed in case of tyrrany by their government”. The intention was for people to defend their other rights by force, making it more difficult for the government (or an invading force) to take over (this was immediately post-revolution mind you and much of the bill of rights was in direct response to british soldiers’ activities). Of course they also thought we’d be reforming the government and drafting new constitutions as the culture changed, but of course that never happened.

I am not a historian, just a pedant.

Non-human entity, please return to your home planet. We don’t want you here.

The “prankster” was kicked out by security the day before and was actively avoiding areas with security on the day of the event. It’s unreasonable to expect someone being attacked not to defend themselves. It’s victim blaming to even imply the shooter did anything wrong here.

You’re not a reasonable person though, a reasonable person would be afraid of someone approaching babbling incoherently, would back off and tell them to get away, then react with a fight or flight response if they continued to advance. That’s what someone relying on their ability to reason things out would do. That’s what this guy did. He had a gun, the attacker wouldn’t stop advancing when he retreated. He shot. Self defense.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you’re unaware of violent crime that does not involve guns? Lets put the gun aside for a moment and analyze whether or not the guy felt afraid. If someone walks up to you in the manner this guy did, you get afraid. It’s WHAT THE PERPETRATOR WANTED THE GUY TO DO! He even said that he kept approaching because the guy wasn’t reacting the way he wanted. He was escalating the threat to get a reaction. If the guy didn’t have a gun he would have swung instead of shooting when backing away clearly wasn’t working. Fight or Flight is called a “reaction” for a reason. It’s not a fully conscious process. This “prankster” only did what he did because he was so large and intimidating that he knew he didn’t have to fear physical reprisal for his obvious assaults.

Holy crap, are you a social media “prankster” or something? I don’t know how you can feel so vehemently the wrong way about something unless you’re actually doing it.

Your very own quote applies here, the guy kept approaching a fleeing individual, that’s a “reasonable apprehension of imminent injury or offensive contact”. Someone much bigger than you running you down is not “safe”.

Well, I guess you aren’t a reasonable person.

This isn’t just “someone annoying him”, the harasser is a 6’5" dude who walked up to within inches of the shooter, then when the shooter told him to get back and started backing away himself, continued to close the distance. This is open and shut self defense, you don’t get to hunt someone down like that, staying in their personal space, and expect them to not feel threatened. YOU would feel threatened and if you’re telling me otherwise, I have a friend named Billy Bob who’d like to stand silently in your personal space for the remainder of the year.

I think you’re putting too much faith in humans here. As best we can tell the only difference between how we compute and what these models do is scale and complexity. Your brain often lies to you and makes up reasoning behind your actions after the fact. We’re just complex networks doing math.

Nope, you’re looking at it wrong. The Dev got paid to write that code and for all of their 20 years experience. The code was freely given away after that. Nobody loses when knowledge is shared, humanity wins. It gets hairy when you have businesses whose model relies on giving some content away for free and locking some behind a pay wall. Obviously using all of that to train a model without paying anything implies that they never had a subscription, but if they did have one and gave the model access? What’s the difference between that and paying someone to read all those articles? What’s the difference between training a model and paying an employee while training them to expertise? We’re acting like these models are some kind of machine that chops up text and regurgitates it, but that could describe your average college freshman just as well. We’re fast approaching the point where the distinction is meaningless. We can’t treat model training any different from teaching a student.

You can hear James’ voice in some of the more heinous quotes :(