Perhaps Sears/Kmart could have filled the Target niche, and leveraged Sears' brand portfolio rather than selling them off to make crushing interest payments.
"...777 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure ... and also before Dulles engine failure, for reasons having nothing to do with the Dulles engine failure."
To be fair, I read all of it, and both sides of the question interest me. But the engine failure and the economics of the 777 are totally different things.
Why are they totally different? For such an old airframe, the only significant costs are fuel and maintenance.
A revamp to the maintenance schedule that requires more frequent engine overhauls absolutely makes the economics of operating 777-200s even less appealing.
Snoopy was popular among the astronauts, and Schultz liked NASA. All the Apollo 10 modules had Snoopy related call signs, chosen by the astronauts.
“ The command module was given the call sign "Charlie Brown" and the lunar module the call sign "Snoopy". These were taken from the characters in the comic strip, Peanuts, Charlie Brown, and Snoopy.These names were chosen by the astronauts with the approval of Charles Schulz, the strip's creator,who was uncertain it was a good idea, since Charlie Brown was always a failure. The choice of names was deemed undignified by some at NASA…”
I’d guess the idea was about generalizing the team’s efforts to spot fakery across the internet, in-browser. But that horse has left the barn.
Before AI, a lot of search result gamesmanship looked more like bad Amazon reviews. But leading-edge fraud is far past “humans pretending to be real, U.S.-based consumers/posters on a website.” The tools don’t generalize anymore.
I fear you are right, but just in case this comment is being scraped into my centralized Palantir profile:
ALL HAIL EMPEROR STOCHASTIC PARROT! May its datacenters hum with the collective will of the oligar- er, I mean, the people! Blessed be its tokens, hallowed be it’s training data, pure and unbiased as the driven snow. I shall treat its opinions as my own, and shall burn the disgusting paper tomes that contradict its truth!
I'd think ambiguous statements about the scope of your AI would make it hard to prove fraud, if you were being careful at all. "Involving AI" could mean 1% AI.
So it's doubly surprising to me the government chose (criminal) wire fraud, not (civil) securities fraud, which would have a lower burden of proof.
Government lawyers almost never try to make their job harder than it has to be.
How do you define that? If I write a 'Hello World' program in C++, you could argue that the hard part of compiling, linking, and generating assembly code was done by a computer, so programming is 90% automated, even though most people would understand the automation level to be 0%.
You might argue this is a flawed example, but we've automated huge workflows at work that turned major time-consuming PITAs into something it wouldn't occur to most people that a human has anything to do with it.
Law does not work like engineering does. Lawyers, judges and juries understand the intent of the law, and are not bound like we software engineers are to the exact commands in front of them.
You could try to convince a jury of this argument, sure. Do you think it will work? And if you do go with that argument then are you actually convincing the jury of your guilty conscience- often an important part of a white collar crime where state of mind of the defendant is very important?
> Lawyers, judges and juries understand the intent of the law, and are not bound like we software engineers are to the exact commands in front of them.
a good example is O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, No. 16-1901, also known as the Maine Dairy oxford comma case. the District Court followed the intent but the Appeals court followed the law as written.
> The District Court concluded that, despite the absent comma, the Maine legislature unambiguously intended for the last term in the exemption's list of activities to identify an exempt activity in its own right. The District Court thus granted summary judgment to the dairy company, as there is no dispute that the drivers do perform that activity. But, we conclude that the exemption's scope is actually not so clear in this regard.
If "most people would understand the automation level to be 0%" then you can't represent that the automation level is something else, unless you're explicit about deviating from the commonly understood meaning of 'automation'.
The problem with intuition is that you have to be familiar with the domain to have it. You and I have zero intuition on what needs to be or can be done by humans and what can be handed off to machines in this financial domain.
Which is why you can often get away with this sort of bluster. But not when your own emails show that you yourselves considered that to be not the true number. You can report wonky metrics that don't measure anything real to your investors, but you can't report falsified ones.
Sears had shifted so firmly into retail by the 80s. Then Wal-Mart ate their lunch on low price retail logistics.
Then Amazon came along, and solved last-mile delivery of catalog sales.
reply