In the article “These new tools let you see for yourself how biased AI image models are,” Melissa Heikkilä, argues that AI-generating image systems are applying harmful biases and stereotypes. Despite the company's attempts to fix these issues, Heikkila's research with Hugging Face and Leipzig University has created a tool to bring to light these biases. The tool highlights biases and stereotypical images based on gender and ethnicity. Heikkila blames these biases on the training data used which reflects off of American culture/values. Overall, the article clarifies these AI challenges and emphasizes making the system less biased.

"The signs they misunderstand are largely signs that each himself uses to convey affection, so that they are almost literally in love with their own reflections."

Firstly, what does this mean, and how do we know?

Does this show a disconnect between understanding one's own identity as he misunderstands Oliver's coldness which is actually affection? Elio does not have a grasp on himself because he misunderstands his own reflection, although he does come to understand him more as the story progresses.

Exercise 19.5.1 The voltage will be given to us correct?

Exercise 19.3.7 What would the answer look like if both electrodes are consumed?

Exercise 19.2.1b Does it matter which side these are displayed? Mine tend to be on the opposite sides

The king never sleep well. How can he still make the judgement?

Why does he wants the lord to imprison him?

Why the queen feared turnus' life? And why is the advice the queen gives to he?

fighting and honor and protection

honor by resisting dishonor

honor

enforcement

honor

honor for all regardless of gender

how far honor goes

concept

how remained honorable

honor

.

.

white ppl are dumb

honor

Is this the foundational argument for the Supremacy Clause? For this example, does this mean if the states had the power to influence federal programs or policies, that the powers delegated to the federal government would be redundantly delegated?

When do state laws take effect over federal laws? How do you know when which is supreme? or vice versa?

Based on the relationship between State, banks, and General Government, is this suggesting a contradiction or non mutual relationship between the 3 in this line of argument?

This whole phrase is really confusing me? I'm not able to even figure out what any of the parts mean, could anybody help me out?

Is this suggesting that if States were allowed to tax the Federal Government, would States hold power and authority over citizens outside of their state? Would State laws apply universally?

A lot of this argument seems centered around the idea that the people, via its representatives, declared the Constitution has supreme power over states. In this, a State (and by extension, representatives of the people) is arguing the apparent supremacy of the federal gov't over the state, doesn't this contradict the argument of the Supreme Court a bit, that the will of the people was for a federal gov't to hold supreme over state?

Does Maryland grapple with the idea that the sovereignty and power of the states comes from the people in its argument that the Constitution receives its power from the states, as opposed to the people?

I don't understand what this is saying? So on the basis of Marylands contends it changes the meaning of what the Bank means in the constitution?? I'm not sure if I even read it correctly the end of the sentence isn't making sense to me. Changes the character of what instrument? Constitution?

Taxation seems to be a big pinpoint of this argument. In history we have seen many problems with "taxation without representation" or misuse of taxing in this case, but we also see problems today with people not agreeing with where the tax money goes, or especially problems with getting tax returns. Do you think taxation is going to continue being a problem?

This question is more a thought for questions. Do you think that this idea of one government have power over another government issues still stand in to days modern world? or do you think that states and governments the the US are more lacs about this issues then they where in 1819?

Is 'another government' directly referring to the state vs. the national government?

What constitutes a case of confidence? Is Marshall saying here that the national and state governments need to just have confidence in one another that there will be no abuse of power from either end? When does the Court decide a case is to be considered a case of confidence?

Kind of seperate, but do federal buildings pay taxes to the state they are in? Or to the government? Or do they pay at all? If they dont does that mean that the state tax payer does?

In the Epstein text, it says that one of the seven Supreme Court Justices, Thomas Todd, did not participate in the decision. So it was unanimous, but only among 6 of the 7. I wonder why Todd didn't participate? Does anyone know from the text or other history?

I feel like this is a tad dramatic. How would allowing Maryland to tax a government institution arrest "all the measures of the Government"? I understand that taxing the bank would likely lead to the closing of that bank - but how would it interrupt the rest of our governence?

Now that Marshall observes the supreme law of the land to be the constitution, this makes me wonder how the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed when it altered the original jurisdiction that was written in the constitution. Did the creators of the this act not consult or care about the constitution?

This concludes Marshall's habit of asking questions that he proceeds to answer. Are many modern day decisions written similarly? Or is this style more suited to an early justice seeking to define the role of the court, including the types of questions a Justice should be asking and answering?

Okay help me clarify this. In this phrasing saying that if Congress gives appellate jurisdiction over the constitution witch already holds original jurisdiction than that new law or rule makes no sense?

So a mandamus can only be applied to Appellate jurisdiction and not Original? Or can it be applied to both if met with the "specificity" of the original jurisdiction requirements?

I realize this is just an example he's using to prove his point, that every word of the constitution is important and that the constitution should trump other laws. However, I've never heard of either of these - A "bill of attainder" or an "ex post facto" law. Does anyone know what these are?

I'm a little confused on how this analogy fits in. Is this meaning that the bill passed should be enforced by the courts? If this is true how exactly does this fit in the argument?

I do not understand how this statement relates to what was said before. If I'm correct, the previous statements was suggesting that the supreme and inferior courts have certain jurisdiction. Are they saying that how jurisdiction is determined may change over time?

I thought the whole point of this case was to review laws or precedents within the constitution and deem whether or not they were truly viable. Doesn't appellate jurisdiction become necessary then? A higher court overturning a lower courts decision?

How can a court's opinion change? When there are different people on the court would that maybe produce a different outcome? How would you be able to be sure that things are standard?

I am confused on how the legislature fits into the court's original jurisdiction. Did the legislature have to approve each of the cases that the supreme court took? Why only for original jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction as well? Does this still apply today?

Where does the issue writs of mandamus come from then if not the constitution? I thought that the way judicial courts act were all centered around the constitutional law. But the way this is worded, it appears that mandamus is not in reference to the constitution.

I'm curious as to how the writers of the Constitution had not considered that something similar could occur? Why did the writers not introduce some sort of specific method where one of the branches could declare an action of another unconstitutional?

I looked up the Voluntary Cessation Doctrine, but I am still unsure what it means and how it pertains to this case? I wish they would have elaborated more on it. I could be mistaken, but I believe the Doctrine deals with exceptions to mootness, however, I thought Justice Breyer said this case was not moot.

Does Lockey vs Davey involve the qustion of scholarship (of religious schools) provided from government money? Thats what I'm gathering but I'm not sure. Not familiar with the case but before I look it up I'm guessing it has to do with government funded school scholarships secular vs non secular?

How often does social media play a part into political bias? How are judges or trial members able to keep their rulings separate from the bias they're hearing in the news or headlines?

He doesn't really answer the justices question of how he doesn't see the other way of questioning as discrimination IN FAVOR of the church against other non religious people which I think is sort of telling and again why I think justice sotomayor is one of the dissenting judges. One question I have is whether or not there actually is anything in the constitution that protects discrimination in favor of religion? I always hear about it the other way around and I remember in one instance not long ago about a christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple based on the argument that it violates his ability to practice his religious beliefs. The court sided with him, which to me is discrimination in favor of "religious beliefs" that was ruled by the supreme courts as justified and constitutional.

Having no prior knowledge of the Establishment Clause, I believe I've been able to glean a little of what it might say from the course of listening to this case. The application of it seems to be broken into two halves of conditionality, "endorsement" and "entanglement." Does anyone on the thread have a definition of what these two conditions mean?

This mention of Locke has been used numerous times throughout this conversation, and I have yet to understand where the meaning of this is being drawn from. Are they referring to something John Locke wrote? Is this the name of something or someone I may have missed?

The transmitter George wears in his ear is used to make sure he does not take an unfair advantage of his brain.

Question 3

The racial system that was established in the new world was a racial hierarchy. The system worked based on the purity of ones blood. Then it was used as a status for political and social advancement.