You’re looking for the logical argument here, not the statistical one. You sampled from snakes and said there is a 100% correlation with being a snake (notwithstanding the counterarg in an adjacent comment about scale-free snakes).
I am noting that the logical argument does not hold in the provided definition. If “some” attributes hold in a definition, you are expanding the definitional set, not reducing it, and thus creating a low-res definition. That is why I said: ‘this is a poor definition.’
It’s a poor definition. The same “subsidization and directive influence” applies to all of Krugman’s Nobel-wining domestic champion, emerging market development leaders, in virtually all ‘successful’ economies. It also applies in the context of badly run, failed and failing economies. Safe to say this factor is only somewhat correlated. Broad assertions are going to be factually wrong.
"If they really wanted to know how to use technology to build a more efficient country, they would ask us."
What a powerful statement.
Safely and securely share information that the public deserves to know. Together, we can shine a light on hidden truths and foster a more informed and engaged society. Stand for transparency, stand for truth.
I didn’t. It’s just a giant security scam to let doge access systems. Didn’t you read the article? The USAID people said they don’t trust the doge people so we shouldn’t either.
This whole topic is basura enfuego. Same pack of maroons careening around society for years clamoring for censorship now imagining that Aaron Schwartz is their hero and that they want to menace people. Kids, don’t be like the grasping fools in these threads, philosophically unfounded and desperately glancing sideways, hoping the cumulative feels and gossip will sum to life meaning.
Can you tell us about the multi-generational involvement of George Soros? David Geffen? We’ve been here a long time, and I’m curious if you’ve developed a longer-term perspective.
Notably, each item you cite involves some manner of prior government-centralized policy decision. Each forms the basis for a gross economic distortion.
Interesting that Weinstein and Ciszek are unmentioned anywhere else, given their widely known and recognized involvement in this matter. Weinstein's extended hypothesis is far more interesting and compelling that this particular paper.
You seem to have the concepts logically inverted. Mistruth is necessary for defamation but not sufficient. You are quite certainly allowed to lie, generally. You are even allowed to lie about me, and there is no exemption to the recognition of God-granted freedoms for it in the US.
However, there are very specific exceptions. You are not allowed to lie under oath. You are not allowed to defraud. You are not allowed to defame. Those states are each defined separate and apart from “lying,” which is freely permissible.
There is no evidence that being made of marshmallows is damaging to one’s reputation, and thus this would not necessarily be classified as defamatory. The law requires proven damage. The details are tricky.
How can you prove that the person sending a death threat was specifically motivated by a specific, broad act of speech?
This is an impossible, unenforceable premise. It has no basis in law either in theory or practice.
Example lines of inquiry: How does one identify the “first mover”? How does one identify the integrity of the “calls”? What if the calls are a single caller represented separately? What if the calls are falsely represented by motive?
Your hypothetical is neither trivial nor provable.
How does one identify the “first mover”? How does one identify the integrity of the “calls”? What if the calls are a single caller represented separately? What if the calls are falsely represented by motive?
What if I, in fact, have today received 400 calls on the matter you have stated? Am I eligible to sue you?
Proposal: Lower the resolution of the context window for distant historical tokens. Summarize most important concepts, drop out the rest. Do not try to assess every single token.
Why do you say something is treated as fact? For example, are either the ‘cheating’ or ‘no cheating’ hypotheses verifiable in any productive regard? There may be confusion between “absence of evidence” versus “evidence of absence.”
It is absolutely fantastic that this assertion draws ire from those who have no substantial response. It is intended to poke you directly in the eyeballs. That crowd so often favors censorship to protect the same.
If you have a substantial response, cast it forth.
So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not suggesting you’re wrong or right, but your approach places a novel legal burden on observers, and thus detaches it from actors, where the responsibility currently lies.
There is no burden of proof required to assert a hypothesis. This is how none of truth nor science nor security operate. There is evidence gathering activity which supports or undermines, strengthening or weakening a hypothesis. Ideally, one dispositive form of evidence affirms or denies a hypothesis. It is not difficult to find historical precedent of election fraud, but in any case, other claims are weak evidence.
This “sounds smart” and I’m sure it circulates well in conversation. In practice, no. The point of “facts” is to identify useful truths that guide decisions. When some portion of the distribution of people identify misalignment, which is inevitable—not optional—then they will true up.