wtfwhateven

Semi-relevant-ish: https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2013/10/09/the-linux-backdoo...

Your reply is essentially spam. Please stop.

>Why do you see the truth as a lie?

I don't. Read what I said again. You were lying about what the other person said, i.e. attacking a strawman.

>Except there is plenty of evidence across the world for over twenty years of "meaningful fraud that could change election results" happening.

No there isn't, not in the US. Substantiate your claim.

AFAIK there are no strings attached, the changes were postponed in June: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15036540-use-the-clau...

Oh, they postponed that in June: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15036540-use-the-clau...

Why are you lying about what the other person said? They said "no meaningful fraud" as in there's not an amount of fraud that can actually change the results.

What strings are attached? I thought they reverted the API usage changes

Please actually read the article instead of being dishonest.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49449449

You, obviously, have neither. A person without a spine is one thing but one without both is just vile, abhorrent cowardice incarnate.

At the time of writing your post 90% of them were talking about the article. That, obviously, necessitates talking about the administration. I guess you interpreted people saying anything other than "I love this admin" as "uncivil". But, well, you already moved from "none of the threads are civil" to "90% of the threads aren't complimenting enough".

You know that, of course, which is why you refused to explain how the people talking about their experience having to avoid specific words in their grant request were somehow uncivil. Very dishonest and abhorrent.

The only one in an echo chamber is you, apparently one you've hallucinated into existence. The only 'individual' here being uncivil is you trying to gaslight everyone into believing any and all criticism of an administration is "uncivil".

And, no, I didn't downvote you.

I accept your concession.

There's numerous civil conversations happening. Why would you tell such an easily disprovable lie?

Could you explain how the people talking about their experience having to avoid specific words in their grant request were somehow uncivil? I'm not sure I understand. Was the objectively ridiculous nature of the situation being laid bare to you uncomfortable and thus "uncivil"?

>Why is this bad?

I don't think anyone voted for the gov to use a crude, ridiculous keyword list with many more false positives than not to terminate the funding of any and all research that simply uttered a bad word regardless of context. I'm not sure why you're pretending they did.

I suggest you actually read the first amendment. Maybe you'll understand then.

None. It's lying, as usual.

No, that is not the definition of "freedom of speech".

Please also read the first amendment.

Grow a spine.

Why would you say something so ridiculous?

I hope the moderators here do something about the AI spambot accounts such as the above.

One example is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49076441

There is, of course, simply no good faith rationale for demanding the HN guidelines must somehow be applied to forbid someone quoting a spokesman of the US government verbatim. Honestly quite abhorrent and dishonest to try and pressure people to not even quote what the US government says if it makes the US gov look ridiculous.

The rest of the account is trivial, nonsensical quibbling about wholly honest headlines or otherwise generic affirmations.

A supposed desire for "neutrality" betrayed by a thinly veiled demand for moderators to censor and punish people for merely quoting the article itself if it doesn't make their favored politicians look great, despite it being the admin's own words. Further betrayed by repeatedly suggesting moderators change headlines to be more "neutral" (but in almost every case actually suggesting a borderline dishonest, whitewashed version to make the terrible actions be as mundane and as normal as possible)

Yes it is! the Mondragon Accords. my first thought when seeing the title :) had no idea the name was based on something real!

Have been listening to an audio-book of 2312 when I have the time to be fully attentive

What?

Terrible, perhaps even knowingly dishonest, analogy.

The opposite is true, actually.

you cannot be serious. wtf?

Wait the FTC is suing Mozilla?

>Not sure who determines the threshold

The SEC.

>he certainly goes to court more than your average person

Yes because he sues a lot of entities for silly things such as some advertisers declining to buy ads that display next to pro-hitler posts, or news outlets for posting unaltered screenshots of a social media site he acquired.

aaand he never replied

It is like they're brainwashed. Awful.

You have clearly not actually read the opinion being discussed and have resorted to outright lying about what it says. Please stop it.

Have you actually read the SC opinion or are you just assuming what it says? It is apparently the latter.

>No he can't because this is against the law

What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?

Do you think immunity is for lawful things? Why on earth are you arguing that unlawful acts are not covered by immunity? What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?

It is what they ruled. What do you gain from lying about this?

No it hasn't.