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.
> 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Presuming you want stalking to be repealed and permissible, you have quite a few bars to pass through.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.
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
> 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.
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.
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?
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.