This is just normal not supporting things you disagree with. It's not a rule of thumb you can quickly use to discount an opinion. Ignoring actors is a pretty handy rule of thumb. Their main skill is repeating someone else's words and emoting. There is no reason to consider them smart, knowledgeable, informed, or competent.
They’ve been raising the contribution limit for several years now. In 2016 the cut off on taxable earnings for social security was $118,500. Next year it’s $186,000.
The phrasing doesn’t make sense anyway. I think I have an individual social security account where they track how much I’ve paid and how much that will entitle me to receive. I also think I have an individual savings account with my bank, and an individual investment account with my brokerage. In none of these perceptions do I think there is a little bin with my money in it stored separately from everyone else’s money.
So it is able to correlate an image as porn and also correlate an image as containing children. Seems like it should be able to apply an AND operation to this result and identify new images that are not part of the data set.
Perhaps these folks should work together to make patches to the dataset to remove the problematic images?
E: But also make sure every image in the dataset is properly licensed. This would have eliminated this entirely from the get go. Playing fast and loose with the distribution rights to these images led to this problem.
That's why you, very early on, release code that slows the API down once it has been deprecated. Every place you issue a deprecation warning, you also sleep 60. Problem solved.
The US has a massively progressive tax system. On a net tax basis about 50% of the country pays nothing. Sure, they pay sales tax and employment taxes, but they also receive some mix of earned income tax credits, child tax credits, snap, medicaid, housing, etc. There is no real way for the US to have a single payer tax system without more people actually becoming net tax payers.
You're just randomly creating new positions to argue about because why? There is no factual way in which whatever point you are trying to make holds true re. Russia/Cuba to the US is less than Russia/Ukraine to the EU & NATO.
Kaliningrad literally shares borders with Poland and Lithuania. 0 km is the smallest distance possible. Russia and Ukraine both border EU and NATO countries.
I imagine the shortest path Russia->Ukraine->EU Members Romania/Hungary/Slovakia/Poland is far shorter than the shortest path Russia->Cuba->Any US State or territory.
If this is a security vulnerability, then these guys just documented their exploitation of said vulnerability. Sounds like a crime.
Proper research would be to identify an issue, write up the issue, conduct a handful of tests, report the issue. Improper research is enumerate the entire input space and gather as much data as you can from the target.
The fact that he spelled it out does not imply that it needed to be said. There is no idea in that letter, that is not personal history, that hasn't been said before.
Corporations large and small don't do anything. It's always a person. The question you are answering, even if you don't think you are, is whether a few people can get together and act in concert and still retain their rights.
The Meso-American civilizations routinely engaged in human sacrifice. Tens of thousands of people per year were murdered. These weren't peaceful monks quietly engaging in scholarly pursuits. Even if you don't personally drag victims to the top of the pyramid and cut their heads off or hearts out, if you stand around and watch, you're part of the problem. I'd be interested in how you compare the details of what pre and post colonization looks like and why you weigh post colonization as evil.
In '92 I was writing ray tracing and multiple rays per pixel randomly distributed around the center of the pixel was well understood. It's just a kind of anti-aliasing.
When a writer reaches a national platform they see themselves as a taste maker, not a reporter. So they write what they think you should think. That's why so many articles tell you how you are supposed to feel about a thing, rather than tell you about that thing. If that means ignoring facts that disagree what they think, well, too bad. Thus we end up with headlines and paragraphs that use words and concepts that are meant to make you feel something. We get headlines like "ICE Breaks Into A House Where There Is A Baby" and "Trump Illegally Indicts Billy Bob."
> All this being said, RISC "won" in the sense that many RISC principles have become the "standard" principles of designing an ISA.
I disagree. Maybe many RISC chip design ideas may have taken over, but only because there are massive transistor budgets. I'd like to see a RISC chip that actually has a basic instruction set. As in, not having media instructions, SIMD instructions, crypto primitives, etc. If anything, Moore's Law won and the RISC v CISC battle became meaningless and they can just spend transistors to make every instruction faster if they care to.
I'm not dehumanizing it, I'm making it clear that photography is generally a passive activity. Where's the line between "don't record me" and "don't look at me"? If it's ok you look at you, but not record you, where's the line? Can someone use a telescope to look at you? Can a store have a camera and a live TV view of all the people who walk in? Can there be a live camera that captures the people on a sidewalk and display it on a giant billboard on the side of a building? If you're at a sporting event can they aim a camera at you in the crowd and put you on the jumbotron? These are all amplifications of visibility, which ones are allowed and which are not. And why should you be able to insist on the absolute bare minimum of noticeability when you are out in public?