It's mostly just that. The whole thing was a mess. The atheists were told they would be debating a Christian and prepared as such, but he won't define himself as a Christian. So much time is wasted dancing around that. They had to change the title from Christian debates to Jordan Peterson debates. On top of that he will barely engage properly, saying things like he won't entertain a hypothetical because he wouldn't allow himself to get in that situation in the first place. Just generally not acting in good faith.

They could own a wii you don't know.

You're right, the literally 1000s of people going through there daily all tell the same lie. I get you need to follow the protocols of your airport regardless of what another one does. But it would be pretty bloody obvious other ones actually are doing things differently.

But... Don't they deal with people from all over the country and world constantly? Ignorance can't be an excuse at that point.

But by who? Musk has said he's trying to fix the way it responds. If he was just paying people to be Grok it would take some huge balls to dissent like that. He would immediately know who it was.

It's one piece. You tell me I want to spot cars one thing they have is wheels, I'm not going to immediately assume every bike I see is a car. But taken with other signs it builds a pattern.

Honestly I've found the best way to spot LLM is just use it an absolute crap ton. You'll start to be able to spot it the way you can recognise the style of an author or director.

Don't and never have done regular sport and I'm pretty bad for it. I think it's just restlessness or helping blood flow.

Sure but it falls apart when an asshole gives them a dollar change instead of a 20 and they fold it as a 20. Any system relies on having trust that the system was done correctly as you can't verify.

It's generally seen as okay on a similar level to undercover work. They do it for Investigation reasons, the torrent was already uploaded before they joined, their monitoring serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and they're authorized by the copyright holder (themselves) to do it. They didn't put the movie or whatever out there themselves.

Their methods are fine, they literally just pirate the stuff themselves, see which IPs connect to them, then connect those to an ISP and notify them. The main reasons you wouldn't get notices are getting lucky, not seeding much, not torrenting things that are being monitored, or having an ISP that doesn't care much.

The single notice from the streaming site makes sense, pirate streaming sites are usually honeypots or heavily monitored.

There's a place called fiverr that's pretty good for that...

I guess you have one with a digital on switch? Because every appliance I've ever owned with an analogue power switch can be left in on state for things like this.

Fair point.

I was definitely too focused on the narrow "did they rule on birthright citizenship" question and missed the bigger picture. You're right that this is way more than just procedural, it's a massive shift in executive power.

The fact that federal judges can now only issue piecemeal, state-by-state rulings essentially breaks their ability to actually check presidential overreach in any meaningful way.

I think I got too caught up in fact checking the specific headline and missed how big Trump's win actually was here, just not in the way the headlines suggested. Thanks for the correction.

100% on both counts.

The forum shopping issue you're describing is exactly the problem. Trump's team can now basically pick and choose where to implement policies that have been ruled unconstitutional elsewhere. It creates this patchwork where your constitutional rights depend on geography, which is obviously fucked.

And you're spot on about the cowardice. The Supreme Court absolutely should have ruled on the constitutional question first. That's the actual substantive issue everyone cares about. Instead they took the cop out that gives Trump more power without having to make the hard call on whether his order is constitutional.

Honestly it looks like classic Roberts Court behaviour: make big changes to how government works while pretending you're just doing technical legal housekeeping. They know damn well that ruling on birthright citizenship would be messy and politically explosive, so they found a way to help Trump without having to own the constitutional implications.

Your point about this cutting both ways (like with mifepristone) is important too, but the timing here makes it pretty clear what they're really doing.

Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn't actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.

Basically what happened: Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it's probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he'd probably lose), Trump's team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges' power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.

So now Trump's celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.

It's more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven't gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.

What exactly is the grift of suggesting Foss over Google? You think he's getting kickbacks? And if you just mean the "grift" of getting paid for YouTube videos... I mean, if people are watching it and it's good information is that really a "grift", seems like just getting paid for giving good information. Better than the majority of YouTube.

The "mysterious" they is HerelAm, the person I was replying to you ninny.

You're literally arguing nothing right now. THEY took the position we should have brackets defining the order in every single equation or otherwise have them as undefined TODAY. It doesn't matter when they were invented. Obviously it's never been written like that. They are the one arguing it SHOULD BE. I said that would be stupid vs following the left to right convention already established. You're getting caught up in the semantics of the wording.

What you inferred: they're saying brackets were always around and we chose left to right to avoid bracket mess.

What I was actually saying: we chose and continue to choose to keep using the left to right convention over brackets everywhere because it would be unnecessary and make things more cluttered.

And yes, that IS a position mathematicians COULD have chosen once brackets WERE invented. They could have decided we should use them in every equation for absolute clarity of order. Saying we should not do that based on tradition alone is a bad reason.

The "always been the case" argument could justify any legacy system. We don't still use Roman numerals for arithmetic just because they were traditional. Things DO change.

Ancient Greeks and Romans strongly resisted zero as a concept, viewing it as philosophically problematic. Negative numbers were even more controversial with many mathematicians into the Renaissance calling them "fictitious" or "absurd numbers." It took centuries for these to become accepted as legitimate mathematical objects.

Before Robert Recorde introduced "=" in 1557, mathematicians wrote out "is equal to" in words. Even after its introduction, many resisted it for decades, preferring verbal descriptions or other symbols.

I could go on but if you're going to argue why something shouldn't be the case, you should argue more than "it's tradition" or "we've done fine without it so far". Because they did fine with many things in mathematics until they decided they needed to change or expand it.

.

.