posterboy

> frequently

once every blue moon?

> by design

that sounds much bigger than it is, a little like inteligent design.

> not even close to comparable with the legal environment in China.

So, you are literally saying that you are not in a position to compare them. Or at least you are saying it's so out of this world, it may be on another planet, a parallel universe even.

Really, I have discovered a legitimate branch of legal research is in constitutional comparation (or whatever it's called). Sounds more promissing than it likely will be, surely a small field, but damn I'm intrigued.

I do concede that this thread should focus on less whataboutism.

> Meta is different because of the US fails as a state, they lose. China doesn't.

Oh, so it's us vs them. Gotcha.

not sure if you are talking electronics anymore or mechanics.

In conclusion, the sixteen year old had better post on the community website that she has a flat tire if anyone could help it, because knocking has become so rare that it upsets people.

As a counter point, then, the people should have posted when they are eating, so one can tell if everyone is busy. Alexa could probably guide the lost girl to the next bike shed if social karma allows /s

In short, I guess, reporting scales with the complexity of the field, contrast war reports, and "science" is a very big field at that, and by the way it's self referential when reports report and analyse reports.

PS: Indeed, pretty much every point made can be found in Aaronson's how to tease out bullshit papers. So the problem is highly fractal (in 8 dimensions if going by the keypoints as definition space)

> This is in contrast to the three-door problem where information is gained by opening the first door.

This is in contrast to the earlier problem statement of Gardiner's wealthy men playing against each other as per the article, actually.

It wouldn't be. People who fall for shell games have to accept that it's fishy and just want to show they are better.

Is that a kind of subdigitizing?

In this sense you're correct, but it is more often refered to as specificly futhark, outside cladistics, if talked about individually, in which case ''it'' may be a subset that would not be refered to in the definite as alphabets, not at all. There are strong arguments for some changes in the order that we see, but that's overall uncertain, so the cladistics argument would be shaky anyway.

Semantics. Some people consider Runes alphabetic and some do not because it does not follow the order of ABC. Some consider the prominent Semitic scripts, Arabic eg.، not alphabetic but Abjad because it has no vowels, although phoenician is usually considered the first alphabet. Alpha is Greek. So I can guess there's a sense of classicist classism

Prof. Finkel is certified nuts, love the show

uhm, there is source code to the networks, or where else do they come from?

The problem is not the logic, but the shear size of it. That is not at all different from any sufficiently complex piece of software that allows side effects. And the comments can be totally useless or downright misleading anyway.

Also, there may be persons who are professional in both programming and lawyering.

I too looked for a small phone and left disappointed. I think there are two or three notable factors.

1. Bigger chassis allows a bigger battery, longer up-time. This is probably the biggest issue.

2. Having gotten used to a 6+" for a while, the small ones appear almost too small. Books are on average bigger than that for a good reason.

3. Very naively speaking, bigger looks better and thus more expensive. Users are therefore more willing to spend more money, whereas a smaller phone will look disproportionately expensive and, as per the first point, now less powerful.

Sony was the last one other than apple to try that, as far as I can tell.

However, cheaper smartphones still exist in that space, they just don't come with newer hardware.

No obligation? The DA could sue immediately in the public interest, or if not it could be the original plaintiff, and then the remaining ISPs would have the opportunity to defend their cause themselves.

Because you don't usually pair two factory identical employees over dedicated message buses?

Nevertheles considering that a single person is entirely unable to do heavy lifting, there is no well defined increase in productivity.

That's a weird statement.

The extreme rigor on the one hand seems to require a value judgement of the real benefits to HTF that I'm not willing to make. The remaining nimble'ity, on the other hand, is an odd word to use over agility or old fashioned responsibility. The benefit is proportional to it, but not exclusively.

The rapidly evolving market conditions concern regular trade too. Swift reactions are expected in any other systems application. "almost impossible" is a weasel word. It's almost impossible to win except for the last man standing, is that it? And there's no practical upper limit to nimble'y, though conservative estimates indicate that less work is more.

What's missing is the perverse incentives, corrupt policies, sociopathic leadership, ...

Physics is most illustrative in experimentation and good enough approximations. None of the above plays a role in undergrad as far as I can tell, unless perhaps if going for ivy league.

There is a very good starting point following the historic developments, maybe iron age stuff, a bit of platonic philosophy, including logic, rhethorics and philology on an a-level level. purely theoretical physics is rather math heavy final year, post grad stuff.

As long as you don't care to point out if and how wine support is far worse, why should anyone care what you care?

There's a difference in semantics whether they violently "axe it" or carefully decide "Not supporting linux" any longer. If you do not care about the difference then because you do not understand the decision any better than I do. Arguably, the decision for selling-out will have a similar motivation as the one against linux, so I find your before/after distinction a possibly misleading false dichotomy.

There is no indication that the motivation is the same for bandcamp. Pretty much everyone in this thread is agreeing that they see bad omens, sure. I just don't agree that Epic is to blame for that.

The false dichotomy of rational and irrational thought is aggrevating. Point one, it's not the irrational that makes religions stupid. Point two, the more usual collocation is rational decision. Like, there are more and less rational ways to deal with problems. Religion is just one of them and it's often not much of a decision.

If you believe you will live forever in heaven blowing yourself up might be an entirely rational decision. The premisse is irrational, and people would usually maintain a sense of ultimate uncertainty ... this fails catastrophically in case of fear. That's not irrational in face of better judgement. It's just not rational, so it's useless to bring up that word, unless to stress the western philosophical angle, which you have carefully avoided.

Although I share your sentiment in general, I would presume that @tluyben's take is fairly true to the broader philosophical view. The ritique of this view being at least as weak as the views on intelligence per se is a drop in the ocean really.

Implying, there is a wealth of thought devoted to inteligence! That fact is actually proving the conjecture in a nicely constructive way by itself, that we are thoughtful indeed, if only you believe this axiomatically like. The quintessential theorem was distiled by Descartes, of course, wherefore he is remembered.

Contrary to the recent top comment on this, which fails to show that such a net existing could be no coincidence, I guess, the answer to your problem might be deeply physical and information theoretic, as soon as you speak of time. Simply speaking, any model is good enough if the approximation is tolerably accurate. In that sense, crude nets as well as expert systems that trigger off clear signals and ample evidence may already exist.

In particular, the way the stockmarkets are distributed the function of time is likely relativistic and every participant is acting under incomplete information even in the infinite limit.

Also, you have to be cautious what any function in this context really means, as I imagine it means differentiable functions (after somebody mentioned the Ackermann function, which is not anywhere differentiable).

that's how US became independent in the first place, by conspiracy

presumably it has a fall back in wine.

Not supporting linux as a gaming platform is a down to earth decision. It's reasonable, whether necessary or not. As a linux user, I see a difference between the expectation of Linux plus driver vendors to support games and a game vendor to support linux, when it is often depending on a busfactor of 1.

Conversely, if Sweeney saw users as participants, for lack of a better word, this might be for ... the good?

For whatever you have in mind, the question was basically whether you see the users as the owners. I thought it is a misleading question because it is riffing on a legal notion of property and possession, without clearly characterising that property, leaving open any illegal aspect to be pointed out if that was your moral basis of the argument. And indeed, one could attempt a hyperbolic retort in which it should be definitely illegal, say, to change a running system. Or how is leninist marxism for a debatable mindset. Understandably you have rejected that debate. Of course the users are an integral part of the platform, and it's a consequential facet of the culture that some are already feeling sold-out.

Eventually it's kind of subjective, when everyone values the entity differently.

How would it make licensing easier?

As for SoundCloud, either they didn't come to terms for whatever reason, or they didn't try to begin with if marketing considerations favor BP.

What remedie do you recommend against buying those shares, though?

Stands to reason then that they are not designing in the same sense, but configuring and customizing. People have been doing that for a while now on FPGA, or in hardware with 8080, and it's hardly anybody's kids. What's so "amazing" about it?

Dumb cores are a commodity now, which progressed in horsepower from their ca. 60 years old ancestors. I.e. the core is hardly innovative, so what is so amazing about it, technically?

hard cash is as cryptic as it gets for some sense of crypt.

why though would anyone choose that option when the other option is also free, don't offer service for payment optional.

The GP was implying the entire system is dysfunctional. Your counter point is, don't participate in this system. Such type of statement comes typically followed by the likes of go away if you don't like it here. If that's the level of friendliness implied by your service ...

> There is a lot of questions about the manager's conduct before the kidnapping. How the heck did things end up there?

Ali's brother runs with the crew and will keep an eye out, something like that I imagine.