illliillll
Do you see any fighting words from me? No? That's because there were none. It is downright hilarious of you to accuse me of an "ad hominem attack".
You call me barbaric and unhinged because you find my opinion unpleasant. You turned the conversation to personal attacks, and you chose to make my criticism of your person relevant to the conversation.
Of course it is relevant that you, the person accusing me of being barbaric, are someone who voluntarily hands out their money to fund executions.
Maybe consider whether or not this approach to moderation truly helps you reach the goal you desire. You could equally well have asked me to use less inflammatory wording without resorting to irrelevant personal attacks.
Americans, a notoriously underfed people.
You guys are already the fattest people in the developed world, maybe it's about time to tone down the food obsession a bit?
So wait, it seems like you're claiming that you're receiving spam from the same gmail/outlook address for months.
This is fascinating and I have a hard time believing it, might you be able to share some headers?
OTOH, if the spammers are forced to frequently switch accounts, they're clearly being impeded.
> You're excluding about half of the planet by only mentioning Africa.
It's the half of the planet that nobody cares about when it comes to football.
It's also noteworthy that you choose to live in one of the 27 states that still has the death penalty.
>Even if you're right it’s irrelevant
I think you made it relevant with personal attacks like "barbaric". There's really nothing wrong with me calling out your hypocricy, given that you presumably pay quite a bit of taxes to a government that uses some of them to carry out legal and illegal executions.
I bet your tax dollars have killed far more innocent people than mine have, so if I'm barbaric, what does that make you? Or is this simply a case of words being less palatable than the actions, where talking about the killing is viewed as worse than the actual killing?
If you honestly considered the death penalty barbaric, you would presumably not be working for a California-based company. Otherwise your objection seems rather performative, especially for a rich man who could easily relocate.
>If you want to mount a case for ways judges and other actors in the legal system should be held accountable for errors that lead to illegitimate convictions, sure, you can do so thoughtfully. This isn’t difficult.
This is simply not a case where the specific details leave much room for thoughtful analysis, I suspect that if you take the time to actually read and reflect on the courts decision you will perhaps see my comment in a different light.
As indicated by the scare quotes, this clearly wasn't a mistake. The judge repeatedly claims things that were not in the evidence presented to him, his misconduct has absolutely nothing to do with the typo that may have mislead the police and prosecutors. This judge made a deliberate decision to not do his job.
What is it in the guidelines that should keep me from arguing in favour of expanding the scope of such penalties to also cover other, perhaps more harmful behaviour?
> is a barbaric, medieval reaction to a modern scenario.
You are inherently calling US voters at large barbarians and medieval here.
You may not share my views on how misconduct by judicial officials should be treated, but you can hardly condemn my opinion as illegitimate given the country you choose to live and pay taxes in. Taxes which fund executions carried out by your government.
What do you expect to achieve by blocking an already abandoned domain?
A careless psychopath firing a gun into a crowd doesn’t necessarily care if he hits anyone. Despite the lack of intent, most would consider that careless psychopath worse than an individual that commits premeditated homicide for a reason other than “fun”.
Intent is irrelevant. The person firing a gun into a crowd knows the consequences of their actions just as well as a lazy judge or prosecutor does.
The evidence presented in this case wouldn’t have satisfied that standard even if all the underscores lined up.
The standard in Canada is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, a standard which does not leave much room for “honest, human mistakes” if you actually take it seriously.
If the judge bothered to review the evidence, he’d presumably have been baffled by the fact that nothing has been recovered from the defendant connecting him to the crime. This judge chose to not do that and chose not to be baffled, that wasn’t an honest mistake.
As a crime this kind of judicial misconduct deserves to be treated more harshly than murder, this is someone choosing to compromise the very systems our societies depend on.
They did send lawyers to my door in the end though.
Someone had forgot IPv6 rate limit bucketing :)
> and redis open source has no default requirement for password complexity.
Loudly Crying Face Emoji
It’s a particularly poor example of government cruelty.
Far less than 1% of all crime which happens is prosecuted, why should OpenAI be prosecuted?
Since the necessary context isn’t provided, this just seems like an utterly stupid question. The obvious answer is “OpenAI probably isn’t being prosecuted because crimes are almost never prosecuted”.
It’s like asking why I don’t get arrested every time I get stopped shitfaced drunk at the La Turbie police checkpoint. The answer is obvious: The cops are looking for brown people, there are no taxis here and after 2am everyone driving in the vicinity of Monaco will be drunk. i.e. nobody gives a shit
What crazy environment requires low priority nothingburger bugs like this to be fixed during the weekend?
Don’t confuse this with an unauthenticated RCE, that would actually matter. Absolutely anyone can shit out endless bugs like this with AFL, this is an extremely messy unhardened surface that expects trusted inputs.
Look at the rest of the world sometimes instead of just navel-gazing. Have you ever traveled outside the EU?
Just… don’t trust inputs you don’t fully control, there’s nothing else to it.
This is such a deeply clownish take. What about all of the military actions that never took place in the world because of global economic co-operation and integration driven by the oil industry?
Why do those not count?
Why the need for dishonesty? There are endless perfectly credible criticisms of the oil industry to be delivered.
So far over $5M into complex cancer care at the fanciest clinics in the world and never been questioned on a single claim.
You will get an entirely different style of wine.
The origin location is really secondary. “Franciacorta” gets you something like Champagne, “sparkling wine” does not.