HN user
If only their definition matters then their only purpose in this thread is to derail the conversation, or in other words railroad everyone else out because only they can be right.
People responding reject that, because if you're not being specific, you're not making an argument, you're just here to be an asshole.
Since you've made this point, I've gone ahead and reported that comment.
Go on, take that theory just the tiniest little step further logically.
So you take that step, is that illegal immigrant a citizen now because they killed someone?
If every potential mate and employer was able to review everything you've ever posted online, we'd all be much more careful with what we say, much better able to screen out bad actors, and the wold would be a better place for it.
This is stalking and is illegal. Are there any other crimes you want to claim as righteous?
Presuming you want stalking to be repealed and permissible, you have quite a few bars to pass through.
And in that society, are you willing to have me as your enemy who is very willing to push society to its utter limits? I know I'd be good at it, and I know thousands if not millions of people who share this interest. Because, as you say, its any potential mate/employer.
You can ask dang specifically or another moderator to prove if you are being trafficked down to irrelevancy by bots. I'm very certain you're wrong either way.
Amazon, NSA, apparently a few other 3 letter agencies around the world, but the lattermost probably did not expect access to their agencies would be limited but appreciate that they aren't going to be exposed as security frauds by just anyone
Can attest to this. The door going into the secure area is the most secure part of a SCIF and always has been. Some companies do the LAN inside the SCIF a bit better than others, but generally its not significantly any different from what is otherwise corpnet on the outside, and tends to be weaker because there (not so rare to find) isn't a corpnet on the inside.
As the article mentions, no new attack vectors were found, but just the scale of it is the concerning part.
As you helpfully noted in your second half of your comment, high wealth, deliberately low income[0] means they are not in the top tax bracket[1] on the basis of their carefully calculated, tax-optimized income.
There is no optimization for anything actually, its just income. There's lots of different forms of taxes that the US government takes part in as you know. Quitting your day job removes the income part until distribution/settlement for any owned assets.
You can argue for a wealth tax, but conflating two separate concepts is not how you do it.
This reads like a tired response not even engaging with the point. What amount of detail would relay to you "human energy"?
You don't even engage with the original argument, you skip past it and claim "we all, collectively" without understanding the meaning of the words, and absolutely they matter.
You do it again with me with the lame "McDonald's". My advice to you is to stop railroading a conversation. It never works. Unless you only want to speak to people like cassianoleal or hgoel.
Hey, if it's irrelevant noise then why are you crying about it?
Anyway, to make it the UK's problem even more, I will be doing what I can to eliminate the UK's traffic to as many services as possible. I have no interest in supporting the small island or it's people or their great red coat firewall.
Enjoy your wall.
"we all" is wrong, always.
You do not agree with me. You can't claim to have my interests or my will if you are against it.
We also know that this premise is simply wrong, Census is statistical survey, no party in the world is legally allowed to inspect the contents of the individual form via Title 13.
Counting illegals is not possible under the Census currently or in any point in the future most likely
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/9
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/foreign-born/about/...
Counting illegals on a poorly defined framework of which is largely self attestation?
On the other hand, it's already now hard to find people for almost any kind of work.
Why is it hard? Can't find a pick from the ~3% unemployment rate? That's approx 100-200k people, are you sure you can't find a person in that selection?
Maybe you're asking a bit much for standards that you are weakly attempting at a defense or justification.
This argument without any other qualifications reads to me as whinging that you're not getting everything you want. So lower your standards, offer more pay, or just move to a different country.
In failed states, sure.
If you're describing the US as a failed state then we have nothing to talk about. Notwithstanding the fact the essence of the state at question even being relevant.
Enjoy your day.
It’s not meant to be a means of legal recourse, it’s a last resort.
Guns are a first line defense for millions of people. A lawyer with a briefcase and a judge wearing a gaudy robe+wig is not a defense at all.
Though the imagery of it would be funny of blasting each of those out of a cannon.
Even the government agrees, issuing a firearm to their officers who go out into the field (read: where everyone else is).
Bad actors like --
William Tong, Anne E. Lopez, Dave Yost, Jonathan Skrmetti, Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde, Kris Mayes, Tim Griffin, Rob Bonta, Phil Weiser, Kathleen Jennings, Brian Schwalb, Christopher M. Carr, Kwame Raoul, Todd Rokita, Kris Kobach, Russell Coleman, Liz Murrill, Aaron M. Frey, Anthony G. Brown, Andrea Joy Campbell, Dana Nessel, Keith Ellison, Lynn Fitch, Catherine L. Hanaway, Aaron D. Ford, John M. Formella, Jennifer Davenport, Raúl Torrez, Letitia James, Drew H. Wrigley, Gentner Drummond, Dan Rayfield, Dave Sunday, Peter F. Neronha, Alan Wilson, Marty Jackley, Gordon C. Rhea, Derek Brown, Charity Clark, and Keith Kautz
--
Always operate under the assumption that the people serve the state, not the other way around. There are some names in that list that are outwardly infamous of this behavior, and none are surprising considering what type of person looks to be an AG. Maybe fighting fire with fire is appropriate - no such thing as a private life for any of these people, all their communications are open to the public 100% of the time and there are precisely 0 instances where it is not the case. It's only fair considering that is what their goal is for everyone not of the state.
What kind of things would you like to hear? The default is you hear nothing. Most black boxes work this way. And you similarly have no say in the matter.
GP is saying that the LLM of choice is not necessarily able to translate the jargon, or establishes itself to be an expert at the concept(s) to employ the jargon compatible with the user.
This is a reaction to reputation, which is sometimes reasonable. But reasonable people also confirm their suspicions with evidence regardless of the situation.
Go ahead and save your time, but remember your reputation is at risk as well, and I would consider you unreasonable.
Pretty predictable what happens when you deny coverage for a treatment someone needs
Other poster demonstrated that you have no idea what "need" is. So you also have no idea what a "shortcoming of the present system" is either, because how the hell would you even know?
Where the hell did you read that
OK so its much a shallower thought than I anticipated.
Why go through the "prediction market" at all then? The hitman still killed someone, payments are not anonymous in this market, and its certainly not clean. Further, you share the pot with however many are involved, proportional to the allotted bets on each side and presuming binary prediction. And if the winds change on the market for the bet proportional to the "hitman's" side, you lose out on dollars that would otherwise be paid to you (the hitman).
And it'd be so easy to stiff the hitman just by equalizing the positions by timing it.
All that risk for something that's far simpler to just pay directly?
Why would the opposing side of that exact same bet allow themselves to be fleeced of all that money for free?
There's a number of people who try and influence elections, money is not nearly as effective as you think it is. Or else a few people that have a few billion in their coffers would run and have won elections in places and other things far more than what they currently do/have done.
The wealthiest entity in the USA is the government itself. It's not even close.
Further, if currency was not able to influence things then that eliminates the main purpose of fiat currency, there is obviously a place for it in any case. Just because you don't like the direction it's being used doesn't mean you have a reasonable position either. Fiat is a benefit to the government in all ways and its in it's best interest to uphold the strength of their currency, not just for the locals to the land in the borders, but if they want to influence the rest of the world.
You should go down the path of "fair elections" because you otherwise lose all points for being vague and imprecise that no one can contest you on because you don't think we are worth the argument.
I look forward to the Great Australian firewall, maybe they can contain themselves without infecting the rest of the world.
arguments like this ignore the point.
And the point should be ignored even more. Free software is a fairly specific thing, trying to co-opt it into something it isn't makes you the bad actor
Make your own idea instead of stealing and leeching off the success of others. Thats frankly disrespectful to even have the gall to do this. You definitely don't deserve ruining another's image for your idea of how society should work.
Why misrepresent what someone else said to make your point?
My comment was pointing out that there are multiple possible (probably simultaneous) causes for the jury statistics.
Sure, but this is a non-statement without qualifying anything behind it. You can defeat any argument by claiming its "multi-faceted". Just like how I am doing to you right now, but instead forcing you into the position where you lack evidence to dismiss.
Very apt, OpenAI's start was always poach-central, we know this from executive email leaks via Elon/Sam respectively.
Any gibberish on any company's behalf of "poaching" is nonsense regardless IMO.
Secondly, incitement to violence is illegal in most countries. If you think it's not in yours, why not try it and see where you end up?
By all means, if that's the way you want to represent the issue, then there is no discussion to be had.
I will, however, represent it this way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...
I can be compelled in a few situations in this incomplete list were of the "deserved" type. But you can't convince me on all of them.