The price might not be worth it, but would be really funny if Valve just delisted the claimed games in the UK and notified the publishers that they need to remove the claimed music or resolve the licensing issue if they want their game back up. Instead of one tidy lawsuit, suddenly these guys are being contacted by the angry lawyers of hundreds of orgs they have existing contracts with.

They didn't say you couldn't appeal a civil case. They said that ineffective counsel can't be the basis of that appeal.

Yes, but orders of magnitude less often than random members of the public "doing their own research". And looking at the consensus of the experts rather than individual experts the error rate is further orders of magnitude below that. You need to let go of the idea that information being a good basis for decisions means that it's "absolute truth", because only religion has that; what we have is some sources of information that are less likely to be wrong than all the others, and that's unfortunately the best you can get.

Well it does seem to be talking about the global 1% which is known to include a pretty big slice of the population in relatively wealthy places like the US. The more exclusive 1% that people usually talk about is the US 1% or the 1% of another specific country.

Keep in mind that 1% of 7 billion people is 70 million. And estimates for the number of billionaires in the world look to be under 3000. In addition, most estimates for worldwide median individual income are under 3000 USD per year.

Taking all that into account, 140k sounds pretty reasonable as a boundary for the global 1%.

I think this might work better with 4 frames since 3 of these images show items that fall under the same definition for seal since their purpose is to prevent something from getting into/out of somewhere.

To oversimplify, it's a metaphor about what it's like to go through life relying only on your senses and not using reason to question or analyze the deeper meanings behind your surface impressions. The story goes on to discuss a prisoner who escapes the cave and gets a taste of true reality, that prisoner is meant to represent a philosopher. When the escaped prisoner returns and tells the others of what he's seen, they reject his claims saying how absurd it would be to believe that there's anything more than just the shadows. I think in this day and age it's easy to guess what that interaction represents, but Plato had a particular bone to pick about this since his mentor had essentially been executed for questioning various things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave?wprov=sfla1

The saying never says that you can make 999,999,999.99 honestly. It just says one amount you can make honestly and one amount you can't. The implication is that the outer limit of what you can make honestly is somewhere in between.

Sorry, but I fail to see how we can categorize a mass shooting as "Jack shit happening". I would actually say that mass shooters are an example that strongly supports OPs sentiment that people who write huge manifestos tend to take action. Maybe they don't achieve all the lofty goals set out in said manifesto, but that seems like it would be small comfort to the people who got shot.

IIRC that same crisis also spurred funding for some of the key initial research that eventually culminated in lithium ion batteries. Considering the various stops and starts in that timeline, battery tech could easily be a decade or two behind where it currently is if not for the oil crisis.

I mean, he's walking through his very solid reasoning for why the headline fails the sniff test, despite being a factoid that is frequently repeated through many channels by many people.

People talk all the time about how we need to strengthen critical thinking skills in the general public. Outside of formal training, this is what that looks like: a culture of publicly explaining the thought process that leads you to question something that many others have accepted without question. The knee jerk reaction of criticizing such statements as rude or overly negative is a big part of why these skills have such a hard time spreading, since people who have the skills feel it's not socially acceptable to share their conclusions.

Or just revise the law to state that international copyrights will only be enforced if they are held by Canadian trading partners in good standing, and that the only prosecutable violations of those copyrights are those which have taken place during the most recent contiguous period that that partner has been in good standing.

That way we don't need to keep updating the law every time a trading partner starts/stops acting up, and other trading partners won't need to worry about impacts to their IP. It will simply be baked in that every time a trading partner unilaterally breaks a trade agreement with us they will in effect be granting amnesty to every Canadian citizen who ever breached their copyright in the past and creating an open season on their IP within Canada until they can reach a new mutually acceptable trade agreement. Honestly this should be a standard practice for many countries.

He's free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn't obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn't owe you anything.

Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.

I mean "America deserved it" and "those kids didn't deserve it" and "the people who did it are evil" are all statements that can be true. There is no logical incompatibility there.

If a person blows up a building full of people and one of them was a serial killer, it's very reasonable to believe "this was a bad act and most of these people didn't deserve it" and "that one guy definitely did deserve it" at the same time.

Saved loadouts

It's the subject of much scholarly debate.

https://youtu.be/L3XnKr0lvDw

For those not prepared to replace their OS, I've been enjoying this project the last couple weeks.

https://gamenative.app/

I don't think that's what it's saying given that "sexual themes" is on this list as well. Seems more like they're saying "we're allowing more sexual content if it's properly labeled, but we're going to start keeping those labels off the home page, and while we're at it we'll take off a bunch of other objectionable content"

"This claim leans heavily into anthropomorphizing non-human things, and that is very rare in rigorous science. Therefore I suspect this is not an accurate representation of rigorous science."

1. Is clear and valid reasoning

2. Is clearly conveyed by the part you mentioned

3. Presents a straightforward reasoning tool people can apply more generally to help them identify cases where scientific results are likely being misrepresented. Exactly the kind of tool that someone can adopt to become better at applying critical thinking in their life.

4. Is much more useful in a broader set of circumstances than the more specific arguments that appear later in the comment to further deconstruct this specific case.

Three years? The last time I used pickle was for a school project over a decade ago and even then these vulnerabilities were clearly laid out in the documentation, and it strongly advised against using it for any serious application. The only reason I kept using it in the project is precisely because it was a school project, and I knew the application would never be used in any production context worth attacking. Watching the ML community enthusiastically embrace pickle in the time since has been very amusing to say the least. Honestly I'm surprised it only seems to be catching up to them now.