belovedeagle

No, no, you weren't paying attention. The (D)s aren't our enemies; they're the smug hypocrites who are or will soon be completely inconsequential in American politics, and who (to our immense amusement) haven't accepted this yet. I didn't say we derive pleasure from your loss, only your tears. The tears of the right would have been just as sweet if they were the sort to throw tantrums, which, thankfully, they're not.

Edit: Also, back to, er, polite discourse, I don't believe the state of civil liberties has significantly changed in the past, what, 11 days. I know you won't accept that thanks to fake-news-ordered outrage, but it's true. So you mistake my non reaction to a non event for apathy, which it's not.

What do I want? I'd love for the (D)s to be way less fucking smug and sanctimonious for starters. Less hypocritical would be nice too, but let's stay within the realm of the conceivable... As for what to do now, well, figure it out yourself; the people in the crowd who actually care about civil liberties are too busy enjoying the sweet, sweet liberal tears to do anything for a few more weeks at least.

Why, are you confused about whether to downvote me? I don't see (a) why it should matter or (b) that it's any of your business... The fact that you need to know the letter next to my name to evaluate my statement is exactly what is wrong with America.

Get real. The objections to the order are based exclusively on whether there's an (R) or a (D) next to the President's name. Nothing more. Incredible to see how many people suddenly "care" about the Constitution after 8 years of Obama wiping his feet on it.

It's become increasingly clear in part several weeks that flagging posts and comments is just another way of downvoting them. Accordingly, I've personally started downvoting and flagging any comment I strongly disagree with just to balance things out. I realize perfectly well that this makes me part of the problem, but if you can't beat 'em...

From what I can tell, there was a notice that public-facing communication be put on hold. Then EPA employees started howling that since peer reviewed articles are public, the administration had just ordered a gagging of all scientific endeavors. The administration put out a clarification that of course scientific articles weren't banned, upon which the media jumped on this as evidence that "aha! So you did ban science and now we made you back down!"

I'm no fan of Trump but this behavior by the left is absolutely idiotic.

On the other hand, if we put in that effort now we won't have to listen to people who know nothing about how the internet came to be, and are indignant and shocked that the US government should have special treatment, for the next N decades. Seems almost worth it to me...

Except that's not how Obamacare works at all! It involves an expansion to Medicaid and Medicare, which are huge failures, and the forcing of healthy Americans into the health insurance market. In fact it has nothing to do with healthcare at all; it only has to do with health "insurance" as if by forcing more money into the system we'll somehow fix it. Because what the American health insurance industry - of which a very small part is healthcare, since even hospitals are putting most of their effort into getting as much money out of the public and private "insurance" schemes as possible - really needs to be "fixed" is more money! I use scare wires around "fixed" because, from the point of view of those running it, the health insurance industry is better than it's ever been.

The article makes it clear that this is standard procedure in Hawaii. No new case law is being created.

> you can't gain more weight than the weight of the food you eat, because conservation of mass

Not, strictly speaking, true: not only must we consider mass-energy equivalence (the chemicals bonds in food vs metabolic byproducts could contribute unequally to mass), but more importantly, we inhale mass well as ingest. From the article, one mass-unit of inhaled oxygen produces less than one unit of exhaled carbon dioxide (although I suspect that more than enough water is lost though net exhalation alone to make up for it). So we have to be a little careful with this conservation of mass argument. It's still basically correct, though, and more-or-less blows the "weight gain is exactly proportional to excess calories" argument out of the water.

There's also a profit motive in food production, should we move to single-payer for that (hint: this means breadlines)? There's also a profit motive in housing; single-payer? Mobile phones? Internet access? Entertainment?

> Specifically, money from the Federal Government.

Excuse me? What money? The government does not generate net positive economic benefit, and therefore has no [real] money. You might be confused and talking about "taxpayer money" — but then why bother with the gov't at all, why not just say your plan amounts to "we should increase healthcare costs so we're, you know, throwing more money at the problem".

You go read the article. The deciding factor is not whether the message has been delivered, but whether WhatsApp servers report to the device that the message has been delivered. There's nothing stopping them from claiming that no messages have been delivered and thus recovering all messages (as long as they had been preselected for false delivery reports) despite true delivery status.

> (1) a false statement of a material fact

First, a GET request is in no way a statement that the user intended to view an ad: is accidentally clicking an ad fraud? Of course not.

Second, a GET request is not even an indication that the user clicked on some element. It's not even a statement that the user requested a particular resource. Indeed, when the ad itself is requested you could hardly call that user-requested; if your analysis were correct I see no reason we couldn't extend it to say that ads themselves constitute a fraudulent statement that "this content is something you requested".

Third, even if a GET request amounts to a statement of user action (if not intent), adnauseam's actions do not constitute a false statement of user action/intent. There are lots of ways to activate the default onclick handler; physically pressing a mouse button is only one of them. Trackpads and touchscreens are other ways; are they fraudulent? Keyboard shortcuts and other keyboard navigation are yet more, are they fraudulent? No, of course not, since they accurately represent user actions. Installing adnauseam is just another method of performing the same action, clicking on ads. It accurately implements the intent of the user, more so than clicking, which can be accidental.

IANAL, but based on your own criteria, without a false statement of material fact there is no fraud.

> Fourthly, this will be a truly diverse path and one that is just perfect.

Surely this article is some kind of satire that's over my head...

Here, let me finish that comment for you: "Gotcha! You don't read this one specific (if very prestigious) journal I can name and aren't familiar with its particular foibles, so you must not be able to provide any evidence for your claim!"

Actually, there's really only one big politicized issue in the natural sciences, not counting ethical concerns in biology (I'll let you figure out what it is on your own). This is unsurprising given that it's much harder to twist the facts to suit a narrative.

The social sciences, on the other hand, are full of politics. I don't have links handy, but X% of researchers in some social sciences openly admit to political discrimination in hiring decisions, for some large X.

> ... specialist and scientific journals. Nothing will survive the vortex of money and power.

You should be wary of the cognitive dissonance being displayed here. What makes scientific journals immune to the corrupting influence of money? Is it perhaps just that you've up to now had no reason to dislike the political agenda found therein?

And wouldn't journalistic ethics have not littered this very article with dozens of references to "Russian hackers" — evidence of whose existence is still completely absent? Twenty-four hours from now, essentially no one who has read this article will remember anything but the incessantly repeated notion that there are dangerous Russian hackers out to compromise US national security in some way, and that we need to be vigilant.

I'm at a loss as to how I could successfully explain the difference to someone who is clearly full of shit and doesn't himself understand the difference.

There's really nothing to explain: You quoted a contradiction. You then typed the non sequitur "law of excluded middle"; I take it we were supposed to infer that the quote is false because of excluded middle. However, the quote is false because it is a contradiction, not because of excluded middle.

I can alter the quote so it is false because of excluded middle: > did not demand > the request is currently not "optional"

(Feel free to send BTC to 1L941R7SdDRGrVhgckCLABWuabQrniZTtP.)

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish in this comment, but you're wrong anyways. This is an example of contradiction (~(P/\~P)), not excluded middle (P\/~P)..

It might be fixed now but when I set it up either that didn't exist or even that couldn't convince cargo to output color control chars to a non-tty pipe.

It's already a keyword or operator (not sure which) used in range notation (1..2); why add a new operator when an old one will do?

A single tmux window, with vim on the left (with no special IDE plugins). On the right, autocall.zsh watches ./src and runs 'cargo build' whenever a file changes. (More specifically, I autocall running in a small pane up top and have it run cargo build piped through less [but you need to fake this as a tty to get cargo to output colors] in a specific, larger pane on the bottom.

I don't think you quite understand the problem... The cost isn't in literally freeing objects but in doing the mark/{sweep,copy}. So Cheney's collection is not equivalent to decrementing the stack pointer.

The only special things about the stack per se are a) arena[0] allocation and b) special ISA and OS support. When people say "stack allocation" the important points are (a) as well as c) static lifetime analysis. These are different concepts: Rust, for example, achieves (c) on the heap as well as the native stack.

[0] I.e., three-pointer, although for the stack the OS manages at least one of them

> the increasing use of real variables in software

This betrays the complete lack of mathematical qualification evident in the rest of your comment. IEEE numbers don't even pretend to be the reals. The most that can be said for them is that they're two copies (positive and negative) of a very small subset of the nonnegative rationals, adjoined to a couple extra symbols (+inf, -inf, NaN), with really wonky operations to work around the obvious non-closure of the rational subsets under standard mathematical operations (let alone the approximations to transcendental functions). I think it's important to be extremely clear: this is not at all like the mathematical reals, not even a tiny little bit. The use of IEEE numbers in serious applications (Bitcoin, iiuc) is truly frightening. They should be considered "useful for computer graphics" (although I can't say whether modern gpus are using IEEE numbers; they're at least useful for software rendering) and nothing more.

To play devil's advocate -- and let's be clear, confusing ordinals and cardinals really is the devil's work ;) -- there are 5 items not after the fifth item.

The ridiculousness of that argument should be evidence enough that the fifth item is item 4.

Why would they need it, except for testing their feature on public roads in vehicles operated by Tesla themselves?

It's a gross misrepresentation to claim that ignoring (i.e., breaking) laws is considered acceptable by [generally recognized] libertarian philosophies. Even many anarchist philosophies would reject that, although not all.

Perhaps the concept you're looking for is "anti-authoritarian", although it's entirely possible to be anti-authoritarian without being willing to break laws as one sees fit.

In games where there's no way to 'export' real cash (at least not without breaking the TOS), does it matter? I can see the usefulness of the rule in that case (although I still don't think it should be a law), but here it's the difference between making one set of pixels appear on your screen vs another. Could an unbalanced/unfair/opaque game be less fun? Yes, for some players. But I have difficulty grasping why even an authoritarian regime feels it needs to regulate how fun a game is to play.

> It's not proper to turn around and call those investigations improper simply because they didn't find anything.

And why not? "Some kid reporting" should not be enough to trigger even the most cursory look - especially when, as you conveniently leave out of your scenario, that cursory look involves issuing an NSL or otherwise obtaining non-public information by exerting the government's considerable power and influence. I see no reason why that should be allowed, nor that it is properly allowed under our legal framework. "Some kid reporting" is not probable cause.