Lkjhmnbv

There's a lot of research into this. If you're curious you can Google around for transfer learning and one shot learning.

Heads up Texas holdem is "solved".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-fold-huma...

Great point. Just like Venezuela!

They have armed guards. They did fix it. :)

How do you do away with unpopular opinions when people decide they disagree with you?

Wrong.

You mean gentrification?

How "modern man" forgets that the comforts of a "middle class level" are unobtainable for all but the Uber wealthy in the world.

Your problems are problems. But they're not real problems. Real problems like starving to death. And not "if I lose my job and x and y and z then I'll starve", but "I'm dying" kind of starve.

I think it's funny that people still don't know anything about the case that codified that shouting fire in a crowded theater should be illegal.

Really not the strongest argument when you just give a blase retort with no actual substance.

The corporate media seems to get away with fraud, libel, and slander daily. So probably?

Until you realize over 50% of the school is the progeny of the 1%. Then you realize what's actually going on.

I mean I feel like it's obviously true that a successful hijacking means using the plane as a bomb.

If you want to just kill a lot of people there are far cheaper and more effective ways. Check out the concerts being attacked.

So the door is all you need.

Count dankula has a communist flag tattoo. He marched and demonstrated with socialists.

The fud is weird.

Nothing you said is relevant to Dragonfly, or any other of a number of bad decisions by Google.

Not everyone is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt any more. I'm sorry that bothers you, but that's reality. You can be mad about it, or you can attempt to understand and mitigate the issue. That's on you.

I do understand. You just don't like the conclusion I drew as it paints the company in a bad light.

We fundamentally disagree on how companies should behave. That's all.

I'm not really at all sure how to even begin to respond to that.

I mean surely you think that flights AA 11, ua 175, and AA 77 were materially different than UA 93. So I really don't get your point.

So the choice is:

1. Open the door and the person uses the plane as a big bomb.

2. Don't open the door and the person uses a smaller bomb.

You die either way. What's the choice here?

So your argument is I'm too simple to understand nuance, so you have to speak to me with lies and half truths so I understand.

This answer is incredibly condescending.

With all do respect, that's not the best deterrent. The best deterrent is the door.

Anyone who knows anything about the Germanwings crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525) knows this. The pilot used an axe on the door for minutes while knowing he was going to die. He didn't get in. Everyone died.

The risks of hijacking are slim to none, unless you're going to hack the plane. If you're going to hack the plane you just need a laptop.

The TSA is a federal jobs program. A nice joke I heard is to disband the TSA and have them be the workers building the wall. Sure it would be useless, but at least it wouldn't inconvenience law abiding citizens just trying to go about their day, treating them like criminals.

I mean I understand what you're saying, I just find it a bit... disappointing? That you'd accept PR speak to be used at all.

Honesty should be the rule, and any PR speak, by anyone, should be denounced.

I do see your point, I'm just disappointed that the company doesn't feel like it can tell you the truth because the truth hurts.

Ok so you weren't saying you were learning things about your company in the NYT, you're saying you are reading things you knew about your company in the NYT?

Do I have that correct?

In the good old days we'd just use ips to connect to irc, and then ask for server ips. Loved dns blocking because I still could do whatever I wanted.

Perhaps that's the point?

Yeah I seriously dont understand the point being made.

Op likes the culture because it's so open and transparent, but doesn't like that the transparency is shattered by having the nyt report on things internally?

Does op just want to be kept blinded by ignorance? I'm seriously confused by the point, and think I'm missing something really basic and fundamental.

There's a reason that it's called penitentiary. It's because you're supposed to repent and show penance. It's meant to rehabilitate and return people to society after they have not only intellectually understood and apologized for their actions, but actually successfully modified their behavior to become a successful member of society.

Now while that is the intent, it does not mean it has not been corrupted. My main point is your idea of learning a skill is 100% what the Bible encourages. Not the punishment. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all that.

Perhaps it's time to return these institutions to their proper purpose by actually discussing what we think should be a crime, and what we think the consequences should be from the ground up.

Good luck with that though when we can't even decide if the other side is evil or not.

Thank you for the conversation.

The problem is you don't view it as oppression because your worldview is one where group rights exist. I don't believe in group rights, I believe in human rights. You don't, and that's fine.

But fundamentally it is your lack of understanding of the past, while being super sure of your position, that I find most interesting. You think that in the past that the bad companies were discriminating based on race, and then the good government came in and fixed it.

This is a completely incoherent reading of history. In fact it was the bad government forcing all companies, good and bad, to discriminate based on race. That's why they were Jim crow _laws_, not Jim Crow _suggestions_. The government was forcing people to discriminate based on race (like you probably do when you support things like affirmative action, etc).

I see history as Plessy V Fergusson. Where the railway didn't want to have discrimination so they challenged the law. Unfortunately people like you, who want to use the force of government to discriminate won.

Now you can object and say you want different discrimination so you're better than those people. Personally, as someone who believes in human rights i don't see a major difference between you and them. Just in who you want to discriminate against, but no ideological difference.

You're the one who forces the government to discriminate because you don't like the world. You just define "politically weak" as people you like and "politically strong" as people you don't. As I keep pointing out.

It is incoherent to say the people who are not allowed to say words are the ones who are oppressing the ones who legislated their ideas as illegal. Sorry.

You believe that marginalized people in society making something political is illegitimate if you disagree, and legitimate if you agree.

That is my criticism of your world view. I did not straw man, you are actively explain how a group of people in society are opressed, but you're OK because it was legal.

I don't believe in using force to gain compliance of the citizenry. We fundamentally disagree on what type of society we live in. I believe in human rights, liberty, and freedom of association. You believe in an administrative state that punishes you for saying blasphemy.