. But it is trained well enough to correlate left and right together
eliza could do that 60 years ago
Our societies have not previously tolerated spaces that are beyond the reach of law enforcement, where criminals can communicate safely and child abuse can flourish.
I am pretty sure, churches were "tolerated spaces" bevor e2ee was a thing.
its zero-trust architecture is programmed in a memory-safe language with no supply chain to monitor!
this is good.
- Users are finally figuring out that some Linux distros are easy to use
so recommending arch linux to newbies was counter productive all along?
suprised_pikachu.bmp
There is a video of an officer planting evidence. That should be the end of the story. But for you it is not.
You trying to control the debate shapiro-style. You create a fictional story, first in conditionals ("if they suspected ... then they had every reason"), and by asking questions ("Did he refuse a breathalyzer test at the scene? Was one offered?"). Now there is a vivid image in the readers head, that you use to derail the discussion into a completely different direction ("Bottom line here: What was this man’s blood alcohol level?").
But the counter to this is very simple: Instead of following your tangent, I will simply un-derail the topic by asking something like:
"Why do you think the officer felt the need to plant evidence?"
I strongly recommend the youtube series "the altright playbook" https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
Just for giggles I also asked GPT4 oppinion on the subject. His response
To support the officer's actions and shift the blame onto the accused individual, leveraging the scenario as described would involve a number of stratagems, focusing heavily on hypothetical questions, assumptions, and diverting attention from the core issue. Here's how such tactics might be applied:
Emphasize Uncertainty and Technicalities: Begin by stressing the complexities and procedural nuances of DUI arrests. Highlight the importance of blood alcohol content (BAC) testing and the legal protocols involving field sobriety and breathalyzer tests. This shifts the debate from the ethics of planting evidence to the technicalities of DUI arrests, muddying the waters.
Frame Hypotheticals as Probabilities: Use hypothetical situations—such as the accused refusing a breathalyzer test or having a reason for arrest due to a suspended license—as almost certain probabilities. This reframes the narrative, suggesting that the officer had just cause for suspicion, thereby indirectly justifying their misconduct.
Construct a False Dilemma: Imply that there are only two possibilities - the accused was either guilty of DUI or not, completely sidestepping the issue of the officer planting evidence. This narrows the debate's focus to the accused's potential guilt, diverting attention from the officer's actions.
Utilize Red Herrings: Introduce unrelated facts (e.g., the suspended license) to distract from the primary issue of evidence tampering. By focusing on these details, you can create a narrative where the officer's actions seem minor compared to the accused's alleged law-breaking behavior.
Through these strategies, the conversation can be steered towards scrutinizing the accused's behavior and the procedural aspects of DUI arrests, rather than the ethical implications of a police officer planting evidence. Such tactics, while effective in shifting debate focus, rely heav...
As usual, the US is already one step ahead: they cut out the middleman by skiping a step.
but then they can still set colors, that we don't. Or at least there are some colors they can differentiate between, that we can't.
e.g if they have a receptor for orange, yellow and red, then can differentiate between pure orange and orange that is 50% red and 50% yellow.
So both is true: We have more colors (because of brain-things), but they still have some colors, that we don't (because of receptors).
e-reader were a gamechanger for me.
on one side they are super convinient, because of the backlight alone.
on the other side: piracy
the linux-file-deletion is used as a example for good software design. It has a very simple interface with little room for error while doing exactly what the caller intended.
In John Ousterhout's "software design philosophy" a chapter is called "define errors out of existence". In windows "delete" is defined as "the file is gone from the HDD". So it must wait for all processes to release that file. In Linux "unlink" is defined as "the file can't be accessed anymore". So the file is gone from the filesystem immediately and existing file-handles from other processes will life on.
The trade-off here is: "more errors for the caller of delete" vs "more errors due to filehandles to dead files". And as it turns out, the former creates issues for both developers and for users, while the later creates virtually no errors in practice.
Latex: Problem --> \def\please@#1#2#3#4{\e@kill#2#3{\me#1}#4@now} --> 
https://www.eigenmagic.com/2010/12/31/why-some-people-hate-microsoft-a-history-lesson/
it's worth the read, but the conclusion at the end is important
Who cares?
Well, everyone who uses a computer should, particularly if we consider what might have happened if Microsoft hadn’t abused their market power. When a monopolist abuses their power, customers all lose, because they don’t get to enjoy the more rapid improvements that robust competition provides. It’s one of the key reasons we think competition is a good thing.
[...] But lastly, and this is the big one for me, we might not have a monoculture of operating system on the Internet with such a poor security model.
[...] Imagine a world where Symantec didn’t exist, because viruses weren’t so easy to write and spread to all the world’s computers. Imagine a world where spam didn’t constitute 90% of all email because it wasn’t so easy to take over a PC and turn it into a botnet zombie. Imagine not having to do impromptu tech-support for family members who accidentally installed a bunch of spyware.
[...]Imagine all the time and money that has been, and continues to be, spent on fixing all of the issues that a better security model 10-15 years ago might have avoided.
In Summary
Microsoft have made (or bought) some excellent products, as they continue to do. There are many wise, capable, and perfectly reasonable people who work there, what with it being a big company and all. This is not a company that is an unrestrained force for evil in the world.
However.
Microsoft have a history of abusing market dominance in order to exclude competitors. Many of the top management running the company at the time are still there, running the company today.
Perhaps there will be no repeat performances, but there are very good reasons for greeting rhetoric from Microsoft regarding their openness with some scepticism.
Inflammatory headline aside, let me be clear that I don’t hate Microsoft. But I can understand why there are those who do.
how to make a good standard:
step 1: copy from DIN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216#History