It might be influenced by the buzz from Russian propaganda - they tend to report 146% support based or "research" conducted by VCIOM. Sure, expect representative numbers from state-run company (all others are extinct) in a country where you can get imprisoned (and tortured) for saying "war" out loud. If you call someone a dog for a month one day they might start barking. Western (and Ukrainian) media share that shit stating "80% russians support putin bla-bla-bla"
The USDA defines[1] food insecurity to include the following:
>Food Insecurity
>Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.
People in other countries would scratch their heads at the very concept of "food insecurity without hunger".
There are two levels of food insecurity described in your source. Why did you only quote the one?
Very low food security—In these food-insecure households, normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had insufficient money or other resources for food.
3.9 percent (5.1 million) of U.S. households had very low food security at some time during 2020.
And according to the graph at the bottom it's still true that people who are Low Food Security are hungry -- just at a lower yet non-zero rate compared to Very Low Food Security.
>I believe the more common proposal is to resolve the contradiction the other way: remove taxes on corporations, as the individuals comprising the corporations generally already pay taxes.
Without a wealth tax that would just make tax evasion even easier for the ultrawealthy in the usual manner of borrowing against the equity of the stock they own.
Unspecified behavior[1] is used in programming language standards for a very similar reason: to provide the freedom to interpret in the, uh, spirit of the code, rather than the letter, when it would be overall beneficial.
>Even if you limit it to the most egregious cases that just shifts the problem. What's egregious and what isn't?
It implicitly shifts the undertone of everything that isn't fact-checked on the platform from neutral to true. This is not a bug but a feature, as it provides the plausible deniability by blurring the line between "no tag since we can't fact-check everything, duh" and "no tag because we tacitly agree with the narrative presented here even if it is untrue".
This bypasses the desired capability, that of getting info from the hard disk.
If you connect input in a feedback loop with an output and train on a particular output, of course you’re going to get the output you’re training for. It’s just not going to bear much resemblance to the data that’s on the hard disk without cooperation from the host system.
It depends on how much control the host system has over the output (can consciously drown out the signal). Suppose you just show YES and NO in big flashing letters while asking your subject the questions you already know the answers to and measure the output when training the device. Then it boils down to whether it can pick up what you "really think" over what you "try to think" better than the current generation of polygraphs (which is very bad at its job). So these technical specifics would decide where exactly it falls within the range from "comically unreliable" to "dystopian nightmare".
>France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035. [1]
according to the target set in the "Energy transition for green growth" bill.
I don't see anything mentioned in the article that would make one think it has such customer base. Do you?