lcnPylGDnU4H9OF

6 ms·

61.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
> You're going to have give us To be fair, only some of "us" are unwilling to read a two-page document to be informed about a topic under discussion. The words you're looking for are "Defendant is not a resident
62.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisign (Under "Controversies".) > In March 2012, the U.S. government declared that it has the right to seize domains ending in .com, .net, .cc, .tv, .name, and .org if the c
63.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
Where else would it start if not "you're not allowed to say this word because I don't like it"? Personally, I don't see why that word being banned gets a free pass. Would this proverbial slope start with speech at
64.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
> make the users fall into a pit of success I don't have anything else to add but I thought this was a wonderfully evocative phrase.
65.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
To add to this, I've read accounts that US Presidents suddenly needed to be charismatic to compete meaningfully after the debates started being televised. So even being charming had not always helped one win public office. I recall a s
66.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
> You went from recording license plates on public roads to logging people in public places. This is kind of a misconception about the technology; there is not really much distinction between these things. Firstly, they are cameras which
67.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
Trying to teach people to garden.
68.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
Ketchup is vinegar-based. I don't think it makes much of a difference.
69.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
He doesn't. I think you misread this passage (it's the only thing that comes close): > When discussing how he would distance himself from racist groups, Mr Schnatter said that Colonel Sanders, the founder of KFC, had never face
70.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
Or it hits a school instead.
71.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
The idea of the conspiracy theorist is a hyperbole fabricated in the public mind by the "almost certain" activity of "groups of people trying to manipulate situations and lie to the public for their own gain". It's
72.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
> the current document is instead to say >> If you are in a setting where you REALLY want to use pure ML-KEM (though we explicitly recommend you do not do it), this is the standard you would implement against. Ah! This corroborates
73.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
Funny thing about conspiracy "theory" is that a lot of the time the theory turns out to be true. In my view, the impulse to dismiss any suggestion of clandestine group activity (except if it's China's government, or Russ
74.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
This (also not unbiased) comment doesn't provide any substantive arguments other than a character attack on DJB. You'd also be hard-pressed to find an appeal to authority in this article. Lastly, I'm pretty sure the comment I
75.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
> It is instead about "if you're going to use pure ML-kem (and we explicitly recommend not doing so), here is how to do it in a standardized way". This makes the push for the standard far more suspicious. Why is it so impo
76.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
> Because journalists see conspiracy everywhere. To be fair, journalists also seem to miss even when there is an obvious conspiracy. They are a varied bunch.
77.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
This point is moot, though. The claim either implicitly includes the task under discussion or it's a non sequitur.
78.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
Well, sort of. That anthropomorphizes them and allows the sociopaths running the corporations to pawn the responsibility of their decisions to the corporation, which is actually a legal fiction that is incapable of independent thought or ex
79.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
It's synthetic even when it doesn't feel so. If an article features a product of any kind, no matter if it's brand-specific or not, and the article isn't a blog post, then it's a pretty safe bet it's a paid adv
80.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
This is missing the forest for the trees. You'd want them represented accurately at a local level along reasonable district lines, rather than intentionally being misrepresented with district lines so tortured that the shapes they make
81.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
> Because they obviously tried to make it any insult by attacking the person they discussed with. It is not an insult to observe another's behavior and commment on it. What you've pulled out from their comment and called an ins
82.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
They were expressing a normative statement about an observation they made; that you took it as an insult is your problem. You brought up Palestine, then said this discussion isn't about Palestine. Indeed, if you think something is not
83.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
> You've got it backward. The notion that criminals are simply ordinary people who find themselves in certain circumstances is the moralistic concept. Two things can be true at once. My point was about the quote I pulled. Other pers
84.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
> People who start committing crime earlier are more likely to simply be bad people rather than people who happened to be in bad circumstances. This is an unreasonable claim without the evidence actually being provided. It reads more as
85.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4mo ago
This comment made me think of pencil sharpening speedruns in the context of "preservation". Had a good chuckle. Quite a different mindset: the point is to sharpen a pencil (or 10) as fast as possible. https://www.speedr
86.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5mo ago
> It's not silly to have issues with something. Note this is not what OP called silly. It's possible to take legitimate issue with something, then act silly about it. People are free to their opinions but not necessarily to (as
87.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5mo ago
I assume they are referring to an incident where their captcha page was updated to perform web requests from the client machine to a particular blog because the author had been trying to uncover their identity. You can search "archive.
88.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5mo ago
Those people did not lose their individual rights; they are still free to donate using their money. Corporations are not people even if they are made up of people. The people making up the corporation can all vote as individuals and the cor
89.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5mo ago
I didn't say it happened, I asked why you think it matters that the bribe wasn't given by someone involved in the case. It is possible that a bribe was given by someone who is not party to the case and the comment I replied to was
90.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5mo ago
> I don't know how you get from that to "he's framing AI as some new and fascinating form of consciousness". Of course you're entitled to your perspective but it seems wrong to say OP ignored what they quoted. Th

More ›