I'm not hearing anything that would change my mind. Yeah of course the AI is literally not trying to guess, it's a dumb ****ing robot, it has no personality or will. It can't try or guess. It can only execute the order somebody gave them and the orders they gave them - to create new pixels and how to determine their color - are there in order to establish what something otherwise blurry or tiny is. Everything else is just talking around it.
Are you not anti-racism? Pro-racism then? Come on ?. I also didn't say that the jury should be all non white, nor am I saying anything that you are writing there. Can we not do this please? I am just saying that the judge has shown a very obvious bias to favor the defendant, and that I would be interested in knowing the jury composition. I did not even say what I think the jury should look like.
1) I was referring to the lunatics who claim it's not enough to not be racist, you have to be anti-racist, otherwise you're racist. 2) By the same token - why would anyone have a problem with posters saying It's OK To Be White? It literally is, is it not? Such an innocuous statement, only a paranoid mind would read anything into that. 3)
You brought race into this case, for no discernible reason.
The zoom is not a computer interpretation of anything. The zoom literally just makes the image larger, and the only reason why you don't see the individual pixels is because you can't zoom in that much in a smartphone or tablet (I assume that we all know that digital images are made of pixels that form a mosaic). That attorney is either an absolute moron, or, which I find more likely, is acting in bad faith. You don't need a PhD level of knowledge to know this stuff, and it was ridiculous and unreasonable for the judge to ask for an expert testimony to be presented on the spot. Let's not pretend that this is something reasonable.
Some zooms do only make things larger, some do more.
You'll have to excuse Rightwing Big Brain, she gets at least some of her news straight from right wing propaganda that has no problem perpetuating misleading claims and outright lies among the right-wing faithful.
For example, here' s a
failed fact check about the prosecutor pointing a gun at the jury.
Incroyable. I really won't lift a single finger when they start coming for journalists, fact checkers especially. Binger did point the gun in the courtroom during the closing speech while addressing the jury, reenacting and recapping the events. Which you can watch for yourself
here. Ok yeah he points diagonally half at the jury, half at the crowd. I guess you got me there! It changes everything! The jokes about him pointing the gun at them to make the convict are such obvious jokes, that it's depressing it even has to be pointed out.
It's actually based on the interpretation of the law by twelve random local laymen, who were convinced how to interpret it by two professional lawyers who are way beyond the jurors in understanding of the law and manipulation of people (specifically jurors). And this public manipulation spectacle is presided by an elected law professional, not the best one available.
Compared to real law systems where law professionals decide the verdict, jury trials are frontier justice.
Then maybe you and the vast majority of people, should not comment the case, since you're not law professionals. You don't know what you're talking about. Only lawyers who have passed Wisconsin bar are experts and you don't want to be one of those unsavory little people who think and talk about things beyond their station in life.