trowaybloway

> The Constitutional Court

... found the government's "propaganda outlets" supporting mandatory fees which are a bunch of times over the European average not disagreeable, for one example. Abuse of surveillance could be used to set the court under pressure, eventually.

One thing after another, in order of death toll.

I was not strictly promoting prohibitive penalization, for one. My comment tried to clarify whether intoxication was res publique or purely private.

The fallacies in your conclusion are:

> freedoms of everyone

> faults of a few

Whether intoxication leads to freedom is debatable.

Secondly, casualties from alcohol abuse are hardly "a few".

You say people susceptible to the detrimental effects, perhaps from a preexisting tendency for lack of inhibition and aptitude are responsible. Whereas they are literally irresponsible. Further, your comment in response to my question could be understood to uphold the right to a buzz over thousands of deaths a year.

I think there's a logical contradiction. Without expected return value, how could one measure how good "as best as" could be? The only resolve I can think of is to try to adjust to a blacklist instead, maybe don't expect results, but at least know when you have failed. To me, this is the same thing expressed in inverse logic.

What's the negative of "expectation of results", ie. the normalization of the expression "no (expectation of results)" in constructive terms. I guess it would have to be perhaps expect failure

Isn't the obvious conclusion that opportunity is a necessary prerequisite to success? In a communist or puritan philosophy that would mean it's lucky to be working, whereas the juxtaposition is virtually the same, working to be lucky. I don't see how the question for chicken-and-egg-priority matters here.

I have no idea really but from the discussion I get the impression that one side assumes some amount of Tether could be issued at will, more or less, whereas the other seems to think to issue means to invent the ... whatever that even is.

So how do you know when it's ignored?

> demanding opening the source code once security updates for the device stop

Copyright law is not in agreement with this. Reasonably, a manufacturer could argue that follow up installments of the software are still actively sold. Then one question is why the fixes wouldn't be ported back to the old release and I guess because differences in the code require significant effort to adapt the fix.

Regulation should seek to equalize ...

> manufacturers liable for the damages caused by security holes in their devices

This is not easy if a chain of bugs in different programs is used to create an exploit. And it would be damaging to warranty wavers especially in open source. After all, the server side will likely run full fledged open source stack. This is where service providers step in. Google would probably like to do monitoring and instrumentation as a service, among others.

you wouldn't allow drugs in traffic and you wouldn't want them in public. Alcohol use shows that not always is drug use constrained to private settings, so there is the argument against it, because what starts in private might under the influence end up in an inappropriate place.

> This means the frequencies emitted are very high (5 samples per period is 19.2 kHz) > and it seems the audio output is being low pass filtered resulting in silly wobbly lines.

Sound Card output is low pass filtered. With a 22KHz cutoff filter frequency, a digital square wave at 22KHz would optimally render as sine of the same period, because that's the base frequency. Resonant frequencies are filtered because they are not audible. That's the principle of digital-analog conversion obeying the sampling theorem.

one word: hercules

I'd prefer to learn the language to read it in the original form, but it's vice versa, people learn the language from translations of Homer.

I wonder how much comparative analysis has gained or will from AI. Given a suitable model to start with, a huge probability tree of ontologies could be handled to reconstruct common ancestors in proto-languages. There were people here reporting interest in machine translation of some 30000 Sumerian clay-tablets, the other day.

The pairing with semantic inference would be interesting, too, or the inverse, alike to deep dream generating adversarial reinforcement in pictures, extracting the principal components of a language to infer stages of it's development, like a sequenced Word Net. There might be some surprises in the ambiguity of metaphors.Especially in long living or quickly developing languages folk etymologies must be common, especially given religion, so a naive machine approach might even help next to manual translation (human in the loop ai).

conversely, rhetoric is a good way to show the topic is important to the speaker.