I did the same thing. It was allowed in general, with the correct thought, “if you can code it yourself, you know the content”
I had another “program” that would fail to run but that’s because I wrote notes into it. Doubt that was allowed.
The issue here is because they’re linked by the owner. If one stock goes up/down, the other does too. This has happened repeatedly with these two companies specifically, even.
So although they don’t own stock in the company in question, they still have a stock in seeing it succeed. Its success will bring about their own financial gain.
The fact that this issue was voiced and they specifically took the action that raises questions about authenticity also means we must question if that’s even the goal. If this went to a different judge, after all, one with no bias, then if this judge is unbiased, he should expect the same outcome. Of course, if he were biased and intended to give a biased ruling to take advantage of the chance to directly increase his wealth, then we’d expect him to be reluctant to let another judge rule on it. He could miss his financial opportunity, after all.
The thing they’re trying to market is a lot of people genuinely don’t know what to say at certain times. Instead of replacing an emotional activity, its meant to be used when you literally can’t do it but need to.
Obviously that’s not the way it should go, but it is an actual problem they’re trying to talk to. I had a friend feel real down in high school because his parents didn’t attend an award ceremony, and I couldn’t help cause I just didn’t know what to say. AI could’ve hypothetically given me a rough draft or inspiration. Obviously I wouldn’t have just texted what the AI said, but it could’ve gotten me past the part I was stuck on.
In my experience, AI is shit at that anyway. 9 times out of 10 when I ask it anything even remotely deep it restates the problem like “I’m sorry to hear your parents couldn’t make it”. AI can’t really solve the problem google wants it to, and I’m honestly glad it can’t.
SCOTUS ruling doesn’t apply here, they’re just commenting on the general trend of people not willing to sentence trump to anything, seemingly.
Just means the new backup service has permissions off by default.
Since your company may not want that, enjoy the eternal Microsoft spam forever.
Unions don’t work without a central state.
If there isn’t an organization larger than a corporation making it keep to a line, a corporation will end up as a monopoly. If a line of work for certain skills is completely monopolized by one company, a union can’t ever get bigger than them to enforce anything. Its a stalemate that the company can end by training scabs and a union can’t end at all. That’s assuming the company doesn’t just start murdering Union heads which is probably the first thing they’d start to do without an organization larger than a company to call on.
Of course, maybe we could unionize everyone into a people’s union, for the purposes of having a bigger entity than a corporation that can defend the people. Pay some Union dues to them to get some police-equivalent people to make companies toe the line. But corruption exists and while the USA isn’t really for the people today, that is pretty much how the USA started.
Unions as we know them rely on regulations like anti-monopoly laws to exist.
Although for the record I don’t hate anarcho capitalism, I just think it’s more of an ideal. A more realistic but comparable system would include a government to protect union rights and prevent oligarchical behaviors while still being mostly hands off on an industry with a Union, letting the union enforce safety and related guidelines.
You missed the memo!
Yeah in my mind it’d be a “blank-only” gun, a movie prop. Which is well within the budget for movies like this, I mean they have a dedicated armorer. Resizing a barrel isn’t uncommon, based on Wikipedia searches, so while it might be a hassle, it could definitely be done within a reasonable timeframe and cost, and avoid any mechanical issues with the gun, but would be pretty high on the list of things a movie would cut corners on if it decided to.
Which is what I gather happened here, anyway, so maybe this IS standard practice.
Yeah but you could use a different caliber that’s nonstandard.
Most likely.
If so, he has won the stupid prize for playing a stupid game.
I don’t think its that rare, but its not common. Usually it means that the client is breaching their agreement. Often that breach is in the form of they lied to the lawyer. Lawyers have confidentiality, so the only reasons to lie are external to the case itself.
Could also mean Lindell stopped paying them, probably for money troubles.
I’m not sure but the mandatory arbitration lindell himself put in said to pay the guy, so it was as rigged as lindell could get it without it being illegal, and they still felt it was well-proven, and lindell should pay.
Right. If he had, he’d have been screwed by the hospital later, which is why he didn’t.
It is.
If he accepted it, he’d no longer have an argument with a strong foundation. He could still sue, but a lawyer could argue they already made it right.
Exactly the same logic as a 1$ inheritance, it shows that this was dealt with, so the law doesnt have to deal with it again.
That’d be a possibility, yeah. Just a possibility, but very interesting nonetheless.
Estimates vary but seem to be between 5 and 10 cents per brick.
Lego definitely makes a profit, but they also haven’t done the usual thing for a business to do, make the product cheaper to squeeze more out of it. In fact, one of the reasons to choose lego over another is the tight tolerances they have for their Legos, they fit better and hold better than a knockoff.
So like, yeah, business, they’re trying to make money, but its not the clear-cut fake inflation thing going on, or even necessarily price gouging, as far as I could determine. Its more, this is what a quality product costs, they haven’t cheaped out, but it just feels so prohibitively expensive because people aren’t paid enough in general.
Well they remembered the plot of Frankenstein and boldly applied it to reality to become afraid of a new thing.
I mean a black box would just mean that no one can see it as it processes. Put things in, get things out. As long as their claims are true, this will certainly do that. Same as an onboard AI that we still don’t understand.
They’re basically saying they won’t ship off data to be processed to anyone else. Apple server hardware will process it in data centers.
There’s then a further promise that this hardware will be isolated from other things apple is doing, so that no other apple processes not related to AI will be able to see this data.
So, for instance, some other AI company might cut a deal with Amazon, get a discount on AWS processing, and in exchange, let amazon snoop through the data being processed. Or, a company might use a cheaper process in an existing data center that isnt particularly secure, and just not care if its being spied on. I’m sure there’s more likely scenarios as well, I’m not a security expert, but apple is promising to thwart any similar thing, by promising the “cloud” for AI is a unique cloud, not just encrypted or whatever, but actually physically separate from everything else
Its the equivalent of saying “this product won’t trigger your peanut allergy, we’ve built a facility that will never see a peanut, so cleaning procedures are easy and accidental contamination is impossible since this product is the only thing made in this factory.”
These are still just claims though, not facts, so we’ll see.
That was Illinois but honestly it’s just obvious in any state with a recreational/medicinal use law.
It’s ridiculous they’re allowed to keep using it as an excuse in general.