knorker
Is it? Another comment in this thread (and I'd agree), it's easier to make a story of relatable bumbleheads.
People have a special place for Picard as a leader that they don't have for other people. Picard stands out even over Kirk, Sisko, and Janeway. Or Mal from Firefly, or O'Neill from SG1. If it's "easy", then what other character comes close?
Most attempts of fictional ideal leaders are just mary sues, or are never actually tested. And the most common of the latter is that their leadership aspect is simply one dimensional.
I'm not saying the other leaders are bad characters or bad leaders. But I could definitely see all the other characters would have a voice in their head saying "what would Picard do". Well… and then reject it, especially Mal.
But keep in mind Google got hacked by the Chinese in 2009 or so.
That's… not what "standard" means.
Or ARM? It's from the 1980s! So old!
Not "40 years ago". Non-stop all day every day for 55 years.
The fact that you personally don't use it today is as irrelevant as if you were ranting about "why doesn't Linux have a Start menu!? It's 2026!!!"
Amusing. It sounds like it's a permit to not need a permit.
And yes, working for META means doing your part to overthrow democracy. It's company strategy to do so, and like it or not, working for META means you are "just following orders" in this enterprise.
I couldn't live like that for long.
And while federal crimes are legal now, couldn't it be against state law too?
And if it fails, and AI goes, "I don't know what happened. I relied on these papers" then I guess one of those must be wrong.
I'm not saying it'd be easy, but I think AI can also find the pieces of the puzzle that broke a pyramid of "discoveries" culminating in a disproval,
And the only other option is to simply never understand as much. AI has the potential to understand things humans cannot. Not necessarily a strict superset.
Humans can deal in 5+-2 things at once. AI doesn't have to, and can cut through leaky abstractions.
If AI says a new invention will do X, and it doesn't, it'll say "you're absolutely right" and try again until it does the thing.
I mean... doomsday scenarios aside.
This is not exactly rocket surgery.
> I'm not going to respond any further.
Yes, as you have painted yourself into an obvious corner of exposing your obvious bad faith, that is probably for the best.
But you're right. I should have stayed with actual corruption and country destroying policies such as selling out Pix. There's plenty of that.
Maybe that he says he'll pardon his father, who had a documented[1] plan to murder the winner of the last election, and others.
And yet people vote for these crime families.
[1] for those who don't know: yes, they did write down their plans to overthrow the government and kill political opponents, and partially implemented said plan.
We're literally in the middle of the election Bolsonaro is winning.
Brazil has Pix. Though if Bolsonaro wins the election he'll sell the financial system to the US, even though Brazilians love Pix.
These are not fringe payment systems, either. They're really big where they are.
EU is working on something similar, and I think it's launched in a couple of countries.
I never felt that I was actually welcome. And I don't have to be. It's not for me, and it doesn't have to be. I answered women inviting me that no, that wasn't made for me, have fun though.
Then mass layoffs happened, and men who lost their jobs, or looking for their first job, went.
Suddenly everything flipped. Keynote was basically "what the fuck are all you men doing here, taking the space of women?".
Oh, the gaslighting. Glad I never went.
I can only conclude that you're saying I'm completely correct, and you only want to clarify the border?
That's fine.
You've conceded the point, and are now trying to mop up the details.
But you don't need me for that.
> What if I only say it at a respectful volume, when the speaker pauses?
Objection. Asked and answered. (In fact, not even asked. I was just very clear initially)
> needlessly antagonistic
With phrases like "congratulations! You've discovered" then playing innocent like this, who exactly do you think you're fooling? This is just bad faith.
Much better than the average crypto gambler.
The cash has been acting as a medium of exchange (something the cryptocurrency industry has given up on, at this point), which is its job, and my wealth is in capital. And capital is what the world runs on. And it's done really well.
In any case I'm not talking about a court of law.
> The heckler is entitled to say "I think the speaker is a moron[...]
Now I know you're not arguing in good faith, since that speech does not in fact deny anybody else's speech. Making it completely off topic. Which is what I'm talking about and I think you know it.
You do not believe that screaming the same thing over and over, or just plain screaming, every time another person tries to say any word at all in their planned event, is anything but the intent of prior restraint.
Are there grey areas? Well, it's life, so of course.
But I do not believe for a second that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Blocking an event venue and using bullhorns and megaphone feedback is not some unsolved philosophical conundrum. Which of course you know.
> Pretending that you're able to magically differentiate someone's intent
This is a pure straw man argument. That's not was I said and you know it.
Dogs = cryptocurrencies. Fleas = scammed.
Before Microsoft made Bing, Google was more secretive about the scale needed to compete, with cloak and dagger code names and secret companies.
… but then when people took taxis to "Jet Stream LLC" or whatever, the driver just goes "oh you mean Google? lol".
The kind of threat who would be able to get past security would also be able to find the DCs.
It's a server side change, robustifying the server-to-server links and its effects on connected clients.
You presumably also think that it'd be free speech to deny your math class hearing the math professor by non-stop screaming?
Nobody is going to stop my free speech about how integrals are not real because infinities don't exist or something. But that's not the same as giving me the right to shut down all speech about it but mine. So yes, I will be taken out of the classroom specifically set up to hear about integrals, for that.
Can religious people prevent your whole school from learning about evolution? That would literally fall under, in your words, a university ordering its students "we will invite speaker A to come talk to you on the big stage, and you have to sit there and listen". Not forced at gunpoint, but at grade-point.
Can I forever shut down a theology department by showing up every day with a bullhorn? Is that free speech?
Would it be free speech to give literally everyone a heckler's veto?
I really think you need to refine your question.
Whether done by the government or by an angry mob is a legal difference, but not a principled or moral difference.
You can't be in favour of free speech and also prior speech restraint, "as long as it's not by the government". And as I've said, to be fair to many of those who do it, they admit that they don't care about free speech. And it's true. Their actions are consistent with their claim.
Both heckler and speaker have free speech rights. The speaker did not come there to prevent the heckler's speech. But if the heckler did come to prevent the rights of the speaker, then they are not merely heckling.
That is a fundamental difference.
Your bullhorn preventing not just the speaker from speaking, but the listeners from being able to reject the speaker's message, is just, well, against freedom of speech and freedom in general.
> But actually think it through, in real world situations, and you end up with so many edge cases.
Am I'm sad that people will give up their values for inconveniences. Then they're not your values, just your hobbies, at best.
You may as well be against torture, "except when it's a bad guy".
Edit: or what do you think of this: You can report this comment to HN, hoping that it gets deleted. Would you claim that this is you exercising free speech, or fighting free speech? I would say it'd clearly be the latter. That is, if you did it not because you found my comment against HN policies, but because you disagree and therefore wish that my argument never be heard by anyone?
How about industrial megaphones?
Your free speech only extends so far as it doesn't prevent, prior restraint, someone else's free speech.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What you just said is the antithesis to free speech.
No. If the goal of your so called speech is to physically stop someone else's right to free speech, then you are just a thug and don't actually hold this value.
And like I said, many people who do this prevention of free speech admin it explicitly in so many words. They do not care about free speech.
It's tiring to see people make the case that because the government was not involved, that it's by definition completely unrelated to free speech. Like, you clearly know that's not the case, from this follow up.
Of course the right to free speech does not extend to compelled speech, as you say.
ACLU defended the Nazis because they support free speech. But "free speech" of course doesn't compel them to. But clearly if they had chosen not to, they'd show they care less about free speech than they say.
Like the ACLU of today, who have said that they'll only defend speech they agree with, or something to than effect. Well, morally, do you actually have that value anymore?