Story as written assumes people will vote with their party and thus comparing registered parties is a good indicator. However, of three people I know to be registered republican, they all claim to have voted Harris. I suppose it's less likely that a democrat went for Trump, but just to point out that analysis is flawed as it has only party affiliation to go with.

Further one might use voting data to characterize two independents I know as 'right leaning' because they always get the Republican primary ballot. However it's because they think it's more important to vote against the worst republicans than try to select the best democrats.

I also read many of the polls would refuse to count the youngest voters anyway, as they only want to count 'likely voters' and for some the criteria is 'having voted in real elections at least twice', which is impossible for people under 22.

until eventually it reaches retirement age

They mostly reached retirement age years ago.

Eh, threatening to split the vote might in theory get some campaign promises, but such promises are likely to evaporate when things get down to it.

Meanwhile if you actually hold a persistent presence in the house or senate, particularly when it's close, you got ongoing leverage. Hell, folks like AOC, MTG, Boebert have an absurd amount of national influence for being elected by merely a singular district.

While true, I have been scratching my head wondering why this rash of ads is happening, why they are so intent on making sure everyone knows their election participation is available to all.

One possibility: if you sit it out, people will know and blame you if your candidate loses.

Another possibility: if you vote, and the "wrong" person wins, you'll be suspected of voting for the "wrong" person.

I don't know which they are going for, but it has tickled my "creepy" meter, and this was before I saw it associated specifically with Trump/Vance (the ads I've seen mention no candidate and just seems a vague go out and vote pitch)

Problem is the data is rigged. It's road miles driven that autopilot deigned to activate for with cars that rarely need their friction brakes that are less than 10 years old versus total population of cars with more age and more brake wear and when autopilot says 'nope, too dangerous for me', the human still drives.

The other problem is people are thinking they can ignore their cars operation, because of all the rhetoric. A human might have still hit the deer, but he would have at least applied brakes.

Finally, we shouldn't settle for 'no worse than human' when we have more advanced sensors available, and we should call out Tesla for explicitly declaring 'vision only' when we already know other sensors can see things cameras cannot.

People drive drunk, people drive while checking their phone,

And those people are breaking the law.

people panic and freeze

I don't think I've ever seen someone panic so much they just act as if they didn't even hit a deer.

deers often just jump in front of you from out of nowhere.

In this case, the deer was just sitting there, so not applicable.

People hit fucking humans without braking because they’re not paying attention to what the fuck they’re doing!

If it was this much negligence, they'd be facing vehicular manslaughter charges.

But for some reason if it’s a car with assistance well now that’s scandalous!

It's scandalous when a human does it too. We should do better than human anyway, and we can identify a number of deliberate decisions that exacerbate this problem that could be addressed, e.g. mitigation through LIDAR, which Tesla has famously rejected.

Drivers Ed does not however say to ignore the brakes, either trying to avoid a collision. Especially to ignore the brakes after having hit something.

Note that part of the discussion is we shouldn't settle for human limitations when we don't have to. Notably things like LIDAR are considered to give these systems superhuman vision. However, Tesla said 'eyes are good enough for folks, so just cameras'.

The rest of the industry said LIDAR is important and focus on trying to make it more practical.

Frankly it's the kind of endorsement that is more helpful. If a moderate Republican retains the rhetoric but otherwise rejects Trump, well that might sway moderate Republican voters. If he declared the entire party was mistaken, well he loses those folks and only appeals to the folks that were already in the Harris column.

A republican saying that the Democrats are still bad, but Trump is uniquely worse and has lead the Republican leadership to lose its way, that might appeal to some people that thought to vote r no matter what, even if they had doubts about Trump.

On the battery, they should have been able to do whatever they thought best in the battery management system, in that case.

Simple answer is easiest, that they are obsessed with the "clean" minimalist look and want to abolish every visible port and buttin they can.

Surprised though that the mouse didn't do the magsafe thing.

A little like it should. Maybe it culminates in at least a temporary drop to the tune of 15-20%. Maybe $50 million dollars of lost revenue a year, assuming people stay pissed (and they frequently get over it, or some MAGA people decide to reward the outlets refusal to get behind Harris). Let's get super pessimistic and assume it totally tanks, and the first number I could find was about $600 million in annual revenue, so Bezos is out a bit over half a billion if this completely blows.

Just one of Trump's tantrums cost Bezos $10 Billion in revenue for Amazon. Burning the paper to the ground would be worth it to spare Bezos Trump's wrath moving forward.

But not necessarily for the reasons you think.

It was pretty much exactly the reasons I thought.

Note the other facet is not just the odds being close, but the consequences being different. If Trump wins, these people know he will be vindictive. In his first term he killed a $10 billion deal with Amazon due to WaPo's coverage and taking it out on Bezos at large. If Harris wins, then she's expected to be more proper, so kowtowing to Trump wouldn't have a downside. So bad behavior to a point is rewarded even in a good outcome, because the good behavior response doesn't call to be all pissy over this sort of thing.

Of course, would be mitigated if huge businesses chock full of ulterior motives didn't outright control big journalism outlets.

If it is a plan, it's pretty dumb. Of all places this act could sway the results, Oregon and Washington are pretty low on the list.

The text has nothing unusual, just a request to make sure a certain author is cited. It has no idea that said author does not exist nor that the name is even vaguely not human

That's an odd level of cheating yet being industrious in a tedious sort of way...

Strangely enough I recall various little mistakes in assignments or handing in assignments, and I lived.

Maybe this would be an undue stress/wild goose chase in the days where you'd be going to a library and hitting up a card catalog and doing all sorts of work. But now it's "plug name into google, no results, time to email the teaching staff about the oddity, move on with my day and await an answer to this weird thing that is like a normal weird thing that happens all the time with assignments".

On the scale of "assisstive technology users get the short end of the stick", this is pretty low, well behind the state of, for example, typically poor closed captioning.

Even if the prompt is clear, the ask is a trap in and of itself. Because it's not possible to actually do, but it will induce an LLM to synthesize something that sounds right.

If it was not 'hidden', then everyone would ask about that requirement, likely in lecture, and everyone would figure out that they need to at least edit out that part of the requirements when using it as a prompt.

By being 'hidden', then most people won't notice it at all, and the few that do will fire off a one-off question to a TA or the professor in an email and be told "disregard that, it was a mistake, didn't notice it due to the font color" or something like that.

No, because they think nothing of a request to cite Frankie Hawkes. Without doing a search themselves, the name is innocuous enough as to be credible. Given such a request, an LLM, even if it has some actual citation capability, currently will fabricate a reasonable sounding citation to meet the requirement rather than 'understanding' it can't just make stuff up.

I'd presume the professor would do a quick sanity search to see if by coincidence relevant works by such an author would exist before setting that trap. Upon searching I can find no such author of any sort of publication.