The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
nohero said:
ridski said:
I'm not saying mtierney hasn't read it, just that the link takes you to the Apple News app, and you need to sign up for a subscription (first month free) just find out what the headline is. Apparently it's an article in The Atlantic, but I can't find it on the theatlantic.com.
I think it’s this one, and this is the theme: “In 1997, Denver paid the owners of the Park Hill Golf Course $2 million to place a conservation easement on the property, limiting how it could be used. More than 20 years later, Westside Investment Partners bought the by-then-defunct golf course for $24 million. After a contentious community-input process, lawsuits, and allegations of stolen lawn signs, the company settled on a proposal to build 2,500 homes (including a significant number of affordable, family, and senior units) as well as some commercial space. It also promised to reserve two-thirds of the 155-acre property as open space. In 2021, Denver voters approved a ballot measure giving themselves the power to decide the easement’s fate.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/07/local-government-power-nimby-denver/674164/
Thanks. Unable to read the whole thing as it's subscription, but I'd love to hear what mtierney thinks about it.
mtierney said:
From the. dry locked down link..
on a wednesday afternoon in March, the Montview Boulevard Presbyterian Church, in Denver’s South Park Hill neighborhood, was packed. The local chapter of the progressive group Indivisible was sponsoring a mayoral-candidate forum. Five candidates had been invited to attend. The moderator asked the usual questions about crime and public safety, homelessness and guns. Then came a question comprehensible only to a close observer of Denver politics: “Do you support releasing the city-owned conservation easement on the Park Hill Golf Course to allow the currently proposed redevelopment of this site?”
What, if anyone here knows, is the status of the Maplewood Country Club re potential land use? I would guess the railroad folks eye the property as a tremendous source for potential new riders.
As someone who lives right next door to the MCC - a huge swath of it is a FEMA designated flood zone. I watch my view go from green fields to lakefront every time we get a decent rain.
mtierney said:
What, if anyone here knows, is the status of the Maplewood Country Club re potential land use? I would guess the railroad folks eye the property as a tremendous source for potential new riders.
I think the golfers would object.
I think Ridski is right with regards to flooding issues in Maplewood but you would have to preserve an awful lot of endangered habitat before I would be able to give even a smidgen of a damn about golf course preservation. Talk about a non issue!
GoSlugs said:
I think Ridski is right with regards to flooding issues in Maplewood but you would have to preserve an awful lot of endangered habitat before I would be able to give even a smidgen of a damn about golf course preservation. Talk about a non issue!
I live up the hill from Memorial Park/golf course/Valley Street, and some mornings I realize that our yard is the habitat.
That's a great picture. I love living where I do but pictures like that make me miss MAPSO just a little.
On June 1, this story took off..
Two days later…
We are at the cusp of what appears to be AI running amok and its creators at a loss to control it.
mtierney said:
We are at the cusp of what appears to be AI running amok and its creators at a loss to control it.
Could be, but Colonel Hamilton’s account and its retraction add nothing to the debate either way.
All I see here is that one of your main trusted news sources posted a made-up/didn't-happen story as fact and never bothered checking to see if it was true just to make people scared of technology. You read it, then read the real story that it was just a thought experiment, none of this really happened, but that doesn't matter because National Review succeeded in making you scared.
mtierney: New day. New fear. New post topic.
ridski said:
All I see here is that one of your main trusted news sources posted a made-up/didn't-happen story as fact and never bothered checking to see if it was true just to make people scared of technology. You read it, then read the real story that it was just a thought experiment, none of this really happened, but that doesn't matter because National Review succeeded in making you scared.
mtierney: New day. New fear. New post topic.
I “trust” The Guardian, meaning I believe it tries to get things right; it ran with the story, too. And is the retraction the real story, or is it damage control after Hamilton spoke out of school? Hell if I know, which for me makes it noise that adds nothing to the AI debate.
ridski said:
All I see here is that one of your main trusted news sources posted a made-up/didn't-happen story as fact and never bothered checking to see if it was true just to make people scared of technology. You read it, then read the real story that it was just a thought experiment, none of this really happened, but that doesn't matter because National Review succeeded in making you scared.
mtierney: New day. New fear. New post topic.
Is it true that Kamala Harris is using AI to smuggle migrants across the southern border as part of a plot to force everyone to use the same bathroom?
Y’all can’t be this bored to bother with this woman posting crap every day. She’s a freakin troll.
Jaytee said:
Y’all can’t be this bored to bother with this woman posting crap every day. She’s a freakin troll.
Welcome, fellow action packer!
Believe the BBC?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65789916
Excerpt ..
A US Air Force colonel "mis-spoke" when describing an experiment in which an AI-enabled drone opted to attack its operator in order to complete its mission, the service has said.
Colonel Tucker Hamilton, chief of AI test and operations in the US Air Force, was speaking at a conference organised by the Royal Aeronautical Society.
A report about it went viral.
The Air Force says no such experiment took place.
In his talk, he had described a simulation in which an AI-enabled drone was repeatedly stopped from completing its task of destroying Surface-to-Air Missile sites by its human operator.
He said that in the end, despite having been trained not to kill the operator, the drone destroyed the communication tower so that the operator could no longer communicate with it.
"We've never run that experiment, nor would we need to in order to realise that this is a plausible outcome," Col Hamilton later clarified in a statement to the Royal Aeronautical Society.
He added that it was a "thought experiment" rather than anything which had actually taken place.
I spent several hours this morning speaking to experts in both defence and AI, all of whom were very sceptical about Col Hamilton's claims, which were being widely reported before his clarification.
One defence expert told me Col Hamilton's original story seemed to be missing "important context", if nothing else.
There were also suggestions on social media that had such an experiment taken place, it was more likely to have been a pre-planned scenario rather than the AI-enabled drone being powered by machine learning during the task - which basically means it would not have been choosing its own outcomes as it went along, based on what had happened previously.
Steve Wright, professor of aerospace engineering at the University of the West of England, and an expert in unmanned aerial vehicles, told me jokingly that he had "always been a fan of the Terminator films" when I asked him for his thoughts about the story.
"In aircraft control computers there are two things to worry about: 'do the right thing' and 'don't do the wrong thing', so this is a classic example of the second," he said.
"In reality we address this by always including a second computer that has been programmed using old-style techniques, and this can pull the plug as soon as the first one does something strange."
Perhaps the world is playing with fire?
Jaytee said:
Y’all can’t be this bored to bother with this woman posting crap every day. She’s a freakin troll.
I think that is one thing on which we can all agree.
mtierney said:
Perhaps the world is playing with fire?
Perhaps you need to go outside and touch some grass. Your fears need some calming.
ridski said:
mtierney said:
Perhaps the world is playing with fire?Perhaps you need to go outside and touch some grass. Your fears need some calming.
Your curiosity of how quickly that story disappeared in America’s media should be piqued, Ridski. I had to visit the BBC.com news site to find an article on the story. Google came up with no references within 24 hours. and you known how Google hangs on to tech stories for eons.
Incidentally touching flowers is, indeed, healing. Grass, not so much, but if it works for you, who am I to judge?
mtierney said:
Your curiosity of how quickly that story disappeared in America’s media should be piqued, Ridski. I had to visit the BBC.com news site to find an article on the story. Google came up with no references within 24 hours. and you known how Google hangs on to tech stories for eons.
Incidentally touching flowers is, indeed, healing. Grass, not so much, but if it works for you, who am I to judge?
Don't know what you searched for, but Google returns many articles about this story.
mtierney said:
Your curiosity of how quickly that story disappeared in America’s media should be piqued, Ridski.
I’m unable to find a follow-up by National Review telling its readers about the retraction. I’m curious. Can you point me to one?
Back on the earlier issue of The Atlantic’s paywall issue preventing access to the Denver story on its golf course. There is another link on Apple News to that story again. I hope this is readable by all..
As I said before, Apple news is an app. You need to download it and subscribe to it to read anything. So, no; it's not readable by all.
Do you have any thoughts on the subject, mtierney? Are you in general a supporter of making it easier to build more housing, including in your own community?
ridski said:
nohero said:
ridski said:
I'm not saying mtierney hasn't read it, just that the link takes you to the Apple News app, and you need to sign up for a subscription (first month free) just find out what the headline is. Apparently it's an article in The Atlantic, but I can't find it on the theatlantic.com.
I think it’s this one, and this is the theme: “In 1997, Denver paid the owners of the Park Hill Golf Course $2 million to place a conservation easement on the property, limiting how it could be used. More than 20 years later, Westside Investment Partners bought the by-then-defunct golf course for $24 million. After a contentious community-input process, lawsuits, and allegations of stolen lawn signs, the company settled on a proposal to build 2,500 homes (including a significant number of affordable, family, and senior units) as well as some commercial space. It also promised to reserve two-thirds of the 155-acre property as open space. In 2021, Denver voters approved a ballot measure giving themselves the power to decide the easement’s fate.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/07/local-government-power-nimby-denver/674164/
Thanks. Unable to read the whole thing as it's subscription, but I'd love to hear what mtierney thinks about it.
As I said...
DaveSchmidt said:I’m unable to find a follow-up by National Review telling its readers about the retraction. I’m curious. Can you point me to one?
mtierney said:
Back on the earlier issue of The Atlantic’s paywall issue preventing access to the Denver story on its golf course. There is another link on Apple News to that story again. I hope this is readable by all..
So, you aren't going to show Dave Schmidt where the National (Socialist) Review notified its readers about the retraction?
Trolls going to troll, I guess.
ridski said:
As I said before, Apple news is an app. You need to download it and subscribe to it to read anything. So, no; it's not readable by all.
I'm able to get to the article through my browser.
This might not be the right venue, but does anyone have any thoughts on why this Indian train wreck is getting so much press? I mean, its a tragedy to be sure but planes crash, trains derail, ships sink, etc all over the world every day but they don't end up lingering at the top of the NYT's homepage for days on end.
GoSlugs said:
This might not be the right venue, but does anyone have any thoughts on why this Indian train wreck is getting so much press? I mean, its a tragedy to be sure but planes crash, trains derail, ships sink, etc all over the world every day but they don't end up lingering at the top of the NYT's homepage for days on end.
A 3 train pileup with almost 300 dead does not happen every day.
GoSlugs said:
This might not be the right venue, but does anyone have any thoughts on why this Indian train wreck is getting so much press? I mean, its a tragedy to be sure but planes crash, trains derail, ships sink, etc all over the world every day but they don't end up lingering at the top of the NYT's homepage for days on end.
Number of plane crashes in history that killed 300 or more passengers: 5.
When two Boeing 737 Max planes went down in separate crashes in 2018-19, killing a total of 346 passengers and crew, it was big news both times. Larger safety issues were a big reason; the train crash raises larger safety issues as well in India, the world’s most populous nation.
ETA: “Days on end.” It’s been two (late Friday to Sunday evening) so far.
drummerboy said:
I'm able to get to the article through my browser.
PC or Mac?
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
From the. dry locked down link..
on a wednesday afternoon in March, the Montview Boulevard Presbyterian Church, in Denver’s South Park Hill neighborhood, was packed. The local chapter of the progressive group Indivisible was sponsoring a mayoral-candidate forum. Five candidates had been invited to attend. The moderator asked the usual questions about crime and public safety, homelessness and guns. Then came a question comprehensible only to a close observer of Denver politics: “Do you support releasing the city-owned conservation easement on the Park Hill Golf Course to allow the currently proposed redevelopment of this site?”
What, if anyone here knows, is the status of the Maplewood Country Club re potential land use? I would guess the railroad folks eye the property as a tremendous source for potential new riders.
My Apple News source only goes so far. Attempts to add quotes the the Atlantic story have failed. The gist is that Denver is eying the golf course property to meet demands for more housing. NIMBY versus reality in Colorado.