15155

4 ms·

1.
by 15155 8d ago
Why would I want someone creating taxable events for me? Under the current tax regime, buybacks are vastly superior.
2.
by 15155 8d ago
Buybacks are dividends by another name.
3.
by 15155 8d ago
Sure, I've written them. None of the NVIDIA-provided SDKs are like this, including the new Rust one.
4.
by 15155 9d ago
I don't mind CUDA, I do mind that all of the SDKs don't dynamically load the various CUDA shared libraries at runtime.. intertwining itself into your application linking process makes for extreme binary portability inconvenience.
5.
by 15155 10d ago
> It's a defense. Who has used it successfully in litigation?
6.
by 15155 10d ago
This is the same logic that the TSA uses to justify its existence. "We're so good nobody attempts it!"
7.
by 15155 10d ago
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. "Not getting sued" doesn't validate a legal theory - legal theories are validated in court where they become case law. Until then, they are plainly speculative. This "c
8.
by 15155 10d ago
Everyone says this, and then exactly zero cases are cited in support of or against this creative legal theory known as "clean room RE." No statute defines "clean room RE" and there's basically no relevant litigation
9.
by 15155 14d ago
Yes, a motivated actor can move a naive receiver somewhere different than where it thinks it is by some small amount - ideally outside of the CEP of whatever weapons system is targeting, but that's much different than precisely control
10.
by 15155 14d ago
> resistance training Yes, but what about sedentary individuals?
11.
by 15155 15d ago
The question is: does it increase muscle nuclei or just water volume?
12.
by 15155 15d ago
Iraq saw massive desertion amongst all non-mercenary ranks during Desert Storm and OIF.
13.
by 15155 15d ago
Automated kill chains and domestic surveillance are happening regardless of what one corporation wants. These technologies will never be inaccessible to the government or government contractors who already have zero issues navigating red ta
14.
by 15155 15d ago
Jamming them is easy, replaying them so as to trick unacquainted receivers is easy, but "faking" a network of signals so as to precisely control present a specific location is not easy or feasible. "Overpowering" (as to
15.
by 15155 15d ago
A valid appeal to authority is normally accompanied by a specific expert's name or working group rather than some abstract "scientists." Also, these appeals to authority normally cite an expert in a field that has an existenc
16.
by 15155 16d ago
This is known as an "appeal to authority." "Scientists" and "their lives" are doing a lot of work here.
17.
by 15155 16d ago
I remember it being called "Cedarpunk" on account of its rendering issues.
18.
by 15155 17d ago
I'm well aware of these cases (and have commented about the specific statute in question in the past here.) The originally-purported analogy of a "public Flock" that you can "actually use" is completely different th
19.
by 15155 17d ago
> it's not necessarily legal to use information to dox if that can be construed as harassment. This is an incorrect understanding of the issue, these individuals are protected using a unique and unusual statute. In a mass broadcast
20.
by 15155 17d ago
Enough private businesses abut major thoroughfares that this is a non-issue.
21.
by 15155 18d ago
Remove the AC coupling capacitor connecting the antenna to the transceiver.
22.
by 15155 19d ago
What's even crazier is that those brokers typically won't sell to members of the general public; there exists basically no reasonable ability to obtain most case law in most states.
23.
by 15155 20d ago
It's not speculation, it's simple fact. Both Lexis and Westlaw already have LLM integration that smokes the frontier models in this regard. The best legal professionals, just like the best software engineers, have wholly embraced
24.
by 15155 20d ago
You presume opposing counsel isn't using GPT-6 and other, legal-specific models trained on data ChatGPT will never gain access to. Hint: they are. Regardless of advice quality, legal proceedings aren't free-to-play, and the advers
25.
by 15155 21d ago
> In theory this would allow for devices to use the full bandwidth of 3.0 + the full bandwidth of 2.0, but as far as I know no device does that. Not as a single device (no XHCI controllers allow this), but yes if you presented two device
26.
by 15155 24d ago
This took months to investigate and was only detectable because the defendant did it along the same route each day. Random, sporadic jamming is essentially not prosecutable.
27.
by 15155 24d ago
> How is additional paperwork supposed to help? Additional paperwork reduces the likelihood (in actual, observable practice) that unintentional interferers exist to impact your critical-to-life application. Furthermore, by moving your cr
28.
by 15155 24d ago
> Not sure what makes an antenna/sensor ITAR restricted, Intentionally-designed anti-jam features (active-nulling and electronically-steerable receivers made for this purpose) marketed towards GNSS applications are EAR items (and ar
29.
by 15155 24d ago
> These antennas have a very good idea of where the signal is coming from, due to delay measurements "These antennas" is doing an impossibly large amount of work. What you are describing here is a delay-calibrated coherent rece
30.
by 15155 24d ago
> Instead those examples you gave just end up being an _excuse_ How is an insurance company provision an excuse? Do you propose self-insurance? If so, would that be advisable from a fiduciary responsibility standpoint for most small comp

More ›