Some genetic algorithms adapted to escape local minima display an extremely close analog of "boredom".

The atrocities that took place in the last few hundred years were almost all non-sectarian. Blaming religion for human evil is raw scapegoating, no different in kind than blaming videogames or blacks or gays or rock and roll or women. ~Oh, the bad things in the world come from people NOT LIKE ME~. Here's a tip for you: the bad things in the world almost all come from people who think exactly like that.

To convict him of this crime, the government has to satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that (roughly) he has it, he knows he has it, he went and got it, and (unless it's been ruled a "strict liability" crime, I dunno) that he knows it's wrong. He is not obligated to tell them that any part of this is true. Suppose the files, instead of being encrypted on his hard drive, were just sealed in his safe deposit box. The government could compel production because they don't have to prove he can get them. Suppose it were someone else's safe deposit box? Then they'd have to prove he has access to it. That's what they have to prove here: he has access. He's not obligated to tell them he does.

Given their other errors, it's reasonable to wonder just what kind of AI could be expected to find any discrepancy at all here.

An efficient method for me to make a profit off you is to put a gun to your head and demand your money. I risk nothing but a two-dollar bullet I won't have to use, and I get whatever I want. That's efficient. It's also widely regarded as criminal, and legally regarded as felony. Standard Oil's business practices were certainly efficient. They were also widely regarded as criminal, and legally regarded as felony.

#1 I miss too. #2 is `open() { xdg-open "$@"; }`. #3 is `xclip`.

Also I miss rewrapping output (that maybe more than the dnd, having to reissue a command because of truncated output is just a waste of my time) and the kerning.

I don't remember any front panel ever using hickory switches.

erk. yes, going on just what I wrote I'd have to agree with you; in my defense I have to point out that I was writing in the context of this border stop and the documented consultation with people tracking travel patterns and such.

Are you seriously arguing that it's unreasonable to suspect someone with seven convictions for various flavors of child molestation of involvement with child porn?

Volokh's great, but techdirt embedded the full summary and opinion, which volokh merely excerpted (and imho they missed the best part, where the 9th bypassed both parties' arguments and re-addressed the limits on reasonable suspicion of their own accord.

This is false.

Almost every word or symbol in any language ever has multiple related context dependent meanings, physics and math not (and far from it) excluded.

You're arguing that there's something special about these particular symbols, that they must never ever have any context-specific meaning.

Yet 4Kmol K at 4K is almost instantly comprehensible: it's a small truckload of of either ridiculously cold or ridiculously cheap potassium. And you're insisting we mustn't use binary K to count binary bytes but must instead use decimal K to count binary bytes because context haaard.

So, the marketers' argument is that quantifiers are somehow holy symbols that cannot abide context-dependent meanings? Mathematicians don't insist on a single meaning regardless of context. Nor do physicists.

We use base 10 when counting most things, base 60 for seconds, and base 2 for bytes.

Are SI devotees struggling with some urge to force base 10 on us when counting seconds? We don't have pedants running around telling people to wait 0.6cs. With seconds they could argue seconds are an SI unit and 60's arbitrary — but bytes aren't, and 2 isn't.

When the exact count matters, it's binary. Base-10 quantifiers in this field are no better than sloppy approximations we tolerate to avoid forcing marketers to admit to themselves what they are.

"Google reads your personal emails" relies on equivocation to leave the uncritical believing falsehoods. "Uncritical" has multilpe meanings, but only one of them produces a sensible meaning here: uncritical as in not employing critical thought. It takes no conscious effort to discard the other meanings as senseless, therefore unintended, so not worth considering.

Both "Google" and "reads" have multiple meanings, but more than one combination of those meanings produces a sensible meaning.

Very, very few people in this world have any real idea what "reads" means when discussing computer programs. People who have no understanding of computers understand "read" only in the human sense, and so "Google" in "Google reads" will be understood only to refer to people in cubicles doing the reading: for them, that's the only sensible construction.

To whatever extent Microsoft's usage is true, 99+% of the world won't understand it; and whatever understanding that part of the world will construct from it is false -- and even those who do understand it correctly will have some little difficulty rejecting the emotional response associated with the statement while considering and rejecting its false meaning.

People who have been paying attention will be neither surprised nor delighted to that this came from a Microsoft mouth.