This just in:

Fwipp, who doesnt know shit about machine learning, has decided that deep convolution networks can be cleverly programmed to be racist. Fwipp knows that he doesnt know shit about machine learning, but feels that his expertise in finding racist versions of both bubble sort and hello world qualifies him as an expert here.

Show a single example. You have dived down into false equivalence, that some claims are stated as fact when they arent, ergo you argue that this claim is also. Weaksauce.

..and I bought stock in oil reserves with the understanding that I was buying into a limited monopoly. Then Saudi Arabia started dumping oil on the market. Should the government make me whole again, too?

It seems that you are the victim of a common misconception: That the State is the one selling the medallions that cost so much. Wrong, ignorant fuck.

So we have to argue circles with you? you have been told why

The medallions are of limited supply because those taxi companies, the ones with the monopoly on them, lobby government to keep them in limited supply.

You have proven to us that the Statists dont give a fuck about the facts, that we have to argue endlessly in circles with you. Go fuck yourselves.

The resumes asking for the lowest wage.

What are you talking about? The government isnt repossessing medallions. Its this sort of irrational babel that has convinced me that the Statists don't care about any facts at all. They don't even get the basics right. its as if they are living on another world where reality is completely different.

Reality: The government isnt selling $1,000,000 medallions in new york city.
Reality: The government isnt repossessing medallions.

..which seems odd since there is a growing belief that intelligence is an emergent property of a particular subset of learning mechanics, and this isnt so much because of the vast knowledge we "understand" about brains so much as it is about the limitations we know must exist. For instance learning in brains must be primarily accomplished by local operators since the connectivity in the brain is primary local, and there cannot be many such operators since the brain is composed of essentially only 4 kinds of neurons. There is no evidence of any kind of global algorithm (beyond the physics.) Even the timing of the neurons is sloppy.

For liberal amounts of "pretty close", sure. One of the things to remember is that AMD's CPU's are now several process shrinks behind Intels latest, so its not a surprise that they could be significantly behind in performance. What is surprising is that they are not, and this tells us exactly what Intel is doing. Intel is not throwing most of the advantage of the process shrinks into performance. What they are doing is throwing those advantages into efficiency (power/heat) because the guerrilla in the room is the ARM designs that are dominating much larger markets than the desktop market and doing it with the same process size as AMD is using.

Intel isn't afraid of ARM, but they are afraid that the foundries that are running 24/7 making ARM designs will put together enough money to jump several process sizes which is a danger to what Intel really is, which is a foundry company.

They should buy them back for the price they sold them for: $0

Oh, you that that the State was selling them? Yeah... uninformed on the basics but has an opinion on the whole thing.

Says the people that wrote and then passed the bill single-handedly.

Doesnt seem to solve the GGP's problem tho, which is that our government is in the business of giving special rights to people that enter a particular kind of contract.

Until you take a stand and say that the government shouldnt be doing that, you are just perpetuating oppression in my book. Sure, add homosexuals to your precious special rights group. Doesnt change the fact that the reason homosexuals want to get married are those special rights, nor does it change the fact that those that would prefer not to get married are forever an underclass without those special rights.

The evidence tells us that no, you are lying. The evidence is that the ACA was written the way it was to get Democrat votes, since it was only Democrats that voted for it.

You don't get the blame Republicans. They didnt do it. The Democrats did. Thats who did it to you.

But we know the actual intent of the lawmakers. They said so themselves before it became an issue: Their intent was to only subsidize state exchanges, not the federal exchange.

Seems to me that you are in a deep bit of stretch to both defend the lawmakers AND the courts in order to preserve a bullshit law. Dont move the goalpost again.

You mean such as slashdot that has never opposed such requests for information, or revealed any of the gag orders against it?

..if congress was never ambiguous about its intent, then how come the only way to reconcile the law is to assume that the laws text is ambiguous about its intent?