> Because that's how you protect people privacy, right???
I'm not promoting such practices. In fact, I was just trying to use the legislators logic: if they are truthful about their "protecting children" slogan, let them start their policing where the predators are most likely to be found instead of targeting the entire population.
Their true motives are far from protecting kids. Otherwise, they would install security cameras inside all corners in all churches in the continent, and, more importantly, enforce bodycam on pastors 24/7.
I must congratulate you on this achievement. That's certainly a useful take on search.
Nonetheless, even when coding, one should also consider thoroughly the UX and how it would be addressing the others.
Saying "unsupported word" is much more sympathetic than "needs to be a word" (where you define what a "word" is, and the general user is unaware of such definition).
Maybe a better suited choice for errors than an insulting message: when I provided a query in my native language it regurgitated the error "needs to be a word" instead of more acceptable "not a supported language".
When you claim that a word in some other culture is not "a word", just because it's not recognized by your machine, that's demeaning to say the least.
Too bad it rejects non-Latin words, as if the definition of "text" is a sequence of alphabetical letters originated from Latin.
I thought that we've reached the time to embrace all cultures in the world, but this retrogressive engine proves that most modern tech designers are myopic about other civilizations in the globe.
What is your definition of "Legitimate"? Is it just what the US lawmakers define as lawful? In such case, we've witnessed many instances where the US imposes sanctions on various entities with no relevant excuses but to oppress those who disagree with it. One recent example that I can think of is when the US imposed sanctions on members of the ICC [1].
Of course it's biased, you needed to dig back to one debatable instance in 1982, but you couldn't find any recent one since all the recent rulings enforce the hypothesis about bias. The system shifts in time, and you can't just pretend it's the same since 4 decades. But I'm probably arguing with JIDF, which makes all exchange futile since you are here to blindly defend the colonizer actions instead of listening.
Your comment would be credible if the Israeli regime juridical system is unbiased. However, their rulings are oppressing the minorities. Indeed, the unrest that we are witnessing in Arab communities inside only highlights the feeling of injustice by the indigenous population.
Let us also remember that the ruling regime is accused of committing the crime of Apartheid. [1]
> For the lazy people who would rather listen to a random stranger on the Internet:
The not so much "random stranger" above is clearly taking the Netanyahu regime side and discrediting any humanity from the reaction that the other side is taking.
They define high IQs as off the normal curve (on a given side), in the same way they define disorders. Why would they scream surprise when they correlate both factors?
It was made using Haskell.
Actually, I'll list below how the animation evolved. Long story short, I decided in the final variants to cast the RGB cube surface on the big square, then animating it.
It seems for them the solution is to destroy privacy for the entire population.
> Please, don't post simplistic vox populi stuff.
Please ask this to the European Commision instead.