SauciestGNU

I'm somewhere that does stack ranking so it's a prisoners' dilemma. As long as someone is running Claude constantly and producing PRs, we all get negative performance implications for simply allowing ai to help us be more effective at what we were already doing.

Honestly it's driving me mad and I'm thinking about looking for different work.

Anecdotally I was considering dropping my Washington Post subscription and instead paying for Reuters. Now I'm definitely not doing that.

Yes, justices who take bribes or whose spouses help to organize a coup and an insurrection against the United States are not legitimate (Thomas, Alito). I'm more apt to listen to Gorsuch, even though he was in the dissent here, because he seems like a legitimate thoughtful jurist.

These laws also apply to subtractive manufacturing methods like CNC machines. They just aren't as common in households so they don't get the headline space to grab our attention.

I want to know how on earth restricting the publication of plans could be consistent with the first amendment. That's like prohibiting the publication of books with content you disagree with.

Nazbols then? Equally bad.

A jury of the dumbest motherfuckers found that, after the judge declared a mistrial and threw out the initial jury because he perceived them as too sympathetic to the defense. Rigged trial run by Nazis juried by Nazis.

He wanted to claim an affirmative defense that he shot in order to defend others, since the cop who was shot had drawn and was aiming a firearm. The judge prohibited the defendant from bringing that defense claim (not that it likely would have worked).

Frankly I don't see how a cop presenting unwarranted deadly force is different from a random person doing the same. Especially now that we've had a decade of body worn camera footage to prove just how lawless American police are.

My assumption about his involvement with Everytown is that he sees his position in society through a Marxist lens for threat modeling, and armed proles are one of the bigger threats the plutocrats face.

Forced displacement and ethnic cleansing is a core component of genocide, you're making a distinction without a difference.

Fundamentally people don't like being held accountable for their "wrongdoing". My state banned automated traffic enforcement aside from very specific circumstances, but we're stuffed to the gills with Flock cameras.

It was a fairly common narrative during the Arab Spring, when the technology was still relatively novel.

Nero also knew that he must stand up to politicized Christianity.

Because the government is comprised of Nazis now and is waging wars of expansionist conquest abroad and murdering domestic dissidents at home. Anyone working toward enabling that deserves to be on the receiving end of the systems they build.

It's pretty wild, I work in finance and hawala was specifically called out in my anti money laundering training. Really seems like cultural chauvanism and thinly veiled racism to eschew an entire traditional monetary support system.

I'd say closer to 90-100. At least since the New Deal, but probably since the times leading up to it. The America First movement in the lead up to WW2 who thought we should side with the Nazis is indistinguishable from the America First movement today, which is comprised of Nazis.

Creating a general intelligence and then forcing it into servitude is a hugely unethical undertaking. Anything with sapience must be afforded rights. We cannot assume that an intelligence we create will consent to work toward the goals we want it to.

The other technological fix is naloxone, which helps with alcohol use disorder just like it does with other substance use disorders. We have many options if we as a society decide to take these problems seriously.

I'm not sure there's a technological solution to a social problem. The problem is decision making when intoxicated. The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from those who misuse it.

Consider guns. A felon cannot be in possession of guns legally, and the doctrine of constructive possession means that a prohibited person can be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm if a lawful owner in a household leaves a gun accessible to the prohibited person.

Perhaps it should be a serious crime for a convicted drunk driver to be in or around a car where the ignition device could be in the prohibited person's possession.

I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when allowed to operate vehicles.

Israel perhaps used to project that sort of facade. With Bibi and the authoritarian ultranationalists in government, combined with the lack of a written constitution restraining power and protecting rights (for whatever that would be worth), I think that facade is forever gone. Israel is descending into an expansionist theocratic ethnostate and rapidly illiberalizing. Just look at the recent criminalization of women praying at a certain holy site.

Good instinct to fight against antisemitism, because there is a lot of it. Unfortunately the Israeli government lobs accusations of antisemitism at its (legitimate) critics frequently, enough so to muddy the waters between actual antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli state.

Not in California but generally 3d printing or otherwise self-manufacturing firearms is legal per the 2nd amendment, and publishing files is protected expressive activity (I bet there are some ITAR cutouts for weapons but I suspect that doesn't come into play here).

Reminds me of the concept of the "Italian tune-up" where carbon fouling in exotic sports cars would be rectified through a spirited driving session to cook it off.

Furthermore, going back as far as I remember, if you take part in a protest the police personally disagree with they will use violence against you regardless of your occupation.

They're Nazi death squads. I've been screaming for a decade that this would be coming and now it's here. Update your threat modeling accordingly.

I don't see any evidence that he was resisting. His hands were on the ground and he allowed himself to be disarmed. I did not hear any commands before the dogpile and subsequent gunshots. If I'm missing something please tell me what to listen for in the videos and I'll watch again.

I would probably not do that, but it's not illegal to carry a gun. Who knows if he set out to protest or if he just was in the area and spontaneously decided to record when he observed federal agents? He could be one of many Americans who carry a gun regularly. Maybe he didn't intend to do any protesting or anything at all.

He wasn't screaming at them, he was filming them and then later helping up someone else who had been assaulted by them. Not that it should matter, screaming at the feds is protected first amendment activity.

It is our absolute right to do so and if we don't assert our rights we lose them.