Thorrez

33 ms·

391.
by Thorrez 1y ago
Is the girl in the picture going to lose coverage? If yes, what part of the OBBB is going to remove her coverage? If not, then why go into all this detail about her if she's going to keep her coverage?
392.
by Thorrez 1y ago
There was a domestic vs foreign distinction in the TCJA, passed in 2017, which took effect in 2022: > 174 to require taxpayers to amortize specified R&E expenditures ratably over a five-year period for domestic expenditures and a 15-
393.
by Thorrez 1y ago
>It also classifies software development as R&D The TCJA (passed in 2017) already did that (effective 2022). So it sounds like this new bill is keeping that, but changing the deduction rules back to what they were before 2022. See th
394.
by Thorrez 1y ago
It makes sense to me now. Thanks for taking the time to explain it!
395.
by Thorrez 1y ago
So can electricity. The difference is that the tool "cheating daddy" was specifically created for the purpose of cheating. Electricity, the Internet, and Google were not created for that purpose. Cheating daddy's tagline is &
396.
by Thorrez 1y ago
>The grain they're adding somewhat distracts from the compression blurriness but doesn't bring back the detail. Instead of wasting bits trying to compress noise, they can remove noise first, then compress, then add noise back.
397.
by Thorrez 1y ago
I'm now seeing that they're different. However, this sounds a bit off to me: >n + 3 is the value after n XOR n + 1 XOR n + 2, so the n in the array index expression is n + 2 from the explaination and n + 3 results from (n + 2)
398.
by Thorrez 1y ago
Different employees in the company have different permissions. If an employee with a lot of access commits a secret, then employees who shouldn't have that much access can take the secret and use it.
399.
by Thorrez 1y ago
In your array-based equation, you say n+1, but in your explanation you say n+3. Is that a mistake?
400.
by Thorrez 1y ago
How did they know you would be there? Did you ask them how they knew?
401.
by Thorrez 1y ago
>those people aren't quoting doge in 2025 Could you explain what this means? Is this article quoting doge?
402.
by Thorrez 1y ago
No idea. I guess that's one possibility. Another idea is journalists grasping at straws to try to find something to expand an article.
403.
by Thorrez 1y ago
>And where is federal law derived from? It's written by the legislature. >What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not? When ruling whether it's enforceable or not, they weig
404.
by Thorrez 1y ago
The article says this: >June 26 (Reuters) - Chinese AI startup DeepSeek has not yet determined the timing of the release of its R2 model as CEO Liang Wenfeng is not satisfied with its performance, >Over the past several months, DeepSe
405.
by Thorrez 1y ago
>The court further reiterated that the human authorship requirement does not “impede the protection of works made with artificial intelligence”, as the USCO has previously permitted the registration of works “made by human authors who us
406.
by Thorrez 1y ago
Is there any likelihood that the output of the model would be public domain? Even if the model itself is public domain, the prompt was created by a human and impacted the output, so I don't see how the output could be public domain. An
407.
by Thorrez 1y ago
>Which manufacturers allow you to easily migrate to a new phone (Samsung has Smart Switch) and have, let's say, 4+ years of security updates? Pixel phones get 7 years of OS and security updates. Do you consider Pixel phones to allow
408.
by Thorrez 1y ago
>I'm sorry you're offended by a song title by the band that we were discussing You presented the title of the song as if it's a statement you're making, not as if it's the title of a song you want to discuss. It&
409.
by Thorrez 1y ago
I don't think so. This article says "ChatGPT-Induced Spiritual Psychosis" only because it's a topic that a lot of people are talking about. The article isn't using the phrase to support its use, but rather to argue
410.
by Thorrez 1y ago
It's no longer a zero day if Apple already patched it.
411.
by Thorrez 1y ago
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
412.
by Thorrez 1y ago
This is kind of an interesting thread. thrawa8387336 says "There would be turbo-inflation" as justification for continuing exploiting workers. Then both liberals and conservatives accuse thrawa8387336 of being a member of the oppo
413.
by Thorrez 1y ago
The article says search engine, not browser.
414.
by Thorrez 1y ago
transcriptase was likely referring more to thrawa8387336's comment than to thinkingtoilet's comment. thrawa8387336's comment says "There would be turbo-inflation" as justification for continuing to exploit workers.
415.
by Thorrez 1y ago
I'm not asking about browsers, I'm asking about a search engine. How could a search engine block a tracking pixel? You click a link in the search engine and go to a website. The search engine can't control the website after y
416.
by Thorrez 1y ago
Do any of the founders or board members of the Signal Foundation show any indication of supporting that?
417.
by Thorrez 1y ago
Why?
418.
by Thorrez 1y ago
While the law with the tax change was passed in 2017, that specific change didn't go into effect until 2022. So it's 3 years of retroactive carveouts (2022, 2023, 2024).
419.
by Thorrez 1y ago
>We therefore urge Congress to include a retroactive carve-out from Section 174’s amortization requirements What if I'm in favor of restoring the previous deduction behavior, but not of doing it retroactively?
420.
by Thorrez 1y ago
>You’re not affected if (and only if) ... >You always used the Brave browser or the DuckDuckGo search engine on mobile How does choice of search engine protect from this?

More ›