← Back to context Comment by colecut 6 months ago That rule does not imply the inverse 4 comments colecut Reply pixl97 6 months ago I mean we have automated systems that 'write' things like tornado warnings. Would you rather we have someone hand write that out?It seems the initial rule seems rather worthless. colecut 6 months ago 1. I think the warnings are generally "written" by humans. Maybe some variables filled in during the automation.2. So a rule with occasional exceptions is worthless, ok
pixl97 6 months ago I mean we have automated systems that 'write' things like tornado warnings. Would you rather we have someone hand write that out?It seems the initial rule seems rather worthless. colecut 6 months ago 1. I think the warnings are generally "written" by humans. Maybe some variables filled in during the automation.2. So a rule with occasional exceptions is worthless, ok
colecut 6 months ago 1. I think the warnings are generally "written" by humans. Maybe some variables filled in during the automation.2. So a rule with occasional exceptions is worthless, ok
I mean we have automated systems that 'write' things like tornado warnings. Would you rather we have someone hand write that out?
It seems the initial rule seems rather worthless.
1. I think the warnings are generally "written" by humans. Maybe some variables filled in during the automation.
2. So a rule with occasional exceptions is worthless, ok