endomorphosis

I have been building an entire operating system ( not figuratively)

Prior to ai autocomplete 500 loc a day and then with ai autocomplete I could do 2500 a day and now 50k is pretty normal. Walking around tech week with my phone yielded 150k this week

Why are you so threatened by girls who don’t code

I’m sorry do you operate a legal business and go to weekly meetings at Stanford law schook

AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS, versus FEARLESS FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, 2023

To be sure, the line between “pure speech” that arguably entails discriminatory sentiments, see 303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 587, and the very act of discrimination itself may at times be hard to draw. And to be sure, Fearless characterizes its contest as reflecting its “commitment” to the “[b]lack women-owned” business community. The fact remains, though, that Fearless simply—and flatly— refuses to entertain applications from business owners who aren’t “black females.” Official Rules at 3. If that refusal were deemed sufficiently “expressive” to warrant protection under the Free Speech Clause, then so would be every act of race discrimination, ... "Moreover, and more specifically, each lost opportunity to enter Fearless’s contest works an irreparable injury because it prevents the Alliance’s members from competing at all—not just for the $20,000 cash prize but also for Fearless’s ongoing mentorship and the ensuing business opportunities that a contest victory might provide. "

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 2023

Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 6–40.

"(b) Proposed by Congress and ratified by the States in the wake of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” Proponents of the Equal Protection Clause described its “foundation[al] principle” as “not permit[ing] any distinctions of law based on race or color.” Any “law which operates upon one man,” they maintained, should “operate equally upon all.” Accordingly, as this Court’s early decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause explained, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States.” ...

"Respondents suggest that the end of race-based admissions programs will occur once meaningful representation and diversity are achieved on college campuses. Such measures of success amount to little more than comparing the racial breakdown of the incoming class and comparing it to some other metric, such as the racial makeup of the previous incoming class or the population in general, to see whether some proportional goal has been reached. The problem with this approach is well established: “[O]utright racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional.”

Yes, they are literally against the law, your knowledge of the law is probably a few years out of date, and I think you should spend more time reading the statutes themselves, this has already been litigated up to the supreme court.

its just that human beings aren't writing things using type safe memory checked languages, but i'll just say that they're trying to concatenate and distill a series of supreme court decisions into public policy.

It basically boils down to: A) Disparate Treatment is always in every case unlawful for any reason except "legitimate business need" B) "legitimate business need" is no longer including "diversity equity and inclusion", but preferencing Female Gynocologists is still going to be fine. C) "Disparate impact" claims are no longer valid, unless remedy a concrete discriminatory practice.

Yes, there was an entire supreme court case about that 30 years ago, a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts I might add.

Disparate treatment on the basis of protected and usually immutable characteristics, is literally illegal, all the sort of mental gymnastics do not matter, that's literally what the law is.

Yes, Quotas are illegal in the USA.

Apparently, GPT4chan is more truthful than GPTJ and GPT3 in the TruthfulQA benchmark.

The AssangeDAO, an organization that has raised $40 million dollars to form a DAO, which would attempt to win an auction of a NFT collaboration between Assange and artist PAK, Have announced that they would open a second round of fundraising for their $JUSTICE token. This lead to a great number of their community accusing them of fraudulent misrepresentations, that there would be only one round of fundraising for the $JUSTICE token. Additionally concerns about the concealed identities of the multisig treasury wallet as well as financial disclosures regarding amounts to be remitted to Julian Assange, and the governance of the DAO which may retain the funds, were expressed.

As a result of the criticism, the moderators of the discord channels, have resorted to censoring their own community members, and have claimed that those who bought the token looking for an investment, will have to eat whatever losses that they incurred.