Yes, I understand that perfectly, which is why I said what I said. Here, let me repeat myself:

But the conclusion that the carjackers are there with or without firearms is a faulty one. All you "know" (and they didn't even know that) was that something that was stolen was in a given location, but the carjacker could have sold the airpods, given them away, discarded them (because they were aware of location data) and an innocent party picked them up and went home...

Going from "we believe stolen property is at the premises" to "there are firearms, ammunition, and accessories" is not a reasonable conclusion to make.

Twitter is no longer a public company. With that said, it really shouldn't matter. The idea that a public company needs to "censor more" because of "regulatory requirements" sounds like it should be a first amendment issue (at least in the US, YMMV for other jurisdictions).

Why? Search algorithms are enormously efficient and easily parallelizable, and what you can describe can be divided into stages and pipelined as well.

You also don't know all that many people, maybe a hundred, maybe a thousand tops. Even sequentially going through a list of all the external characteristics you know about a thousand people is sheer triviality for a modern computer. The dataset would be small because you're not trawling through petabytes of data but looking through already digested and organized information.

Everything works better when specifically designed for the application. A CPU can render in software, but a GPU does it better. A GPU may mine crypto well, but an ASIC designed for crypto and nothing else will do a much better job.

AI turns out to have some quite specific needs that GPUs don't ideally satisfy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That's non-sensical. The US Code consists of laws that have been passed by Congress. Congress cannot delegate powers that it does not possess.

Going out on a limb and saying you didn't hear a damned thing, or you're just plain lying. Here is the whole quote:

Sounds a lot less like what it's being portrayed as when it's not take out of context, doesn't it?

With all of the above said, fuck you for making me defend Darth Cheeto.

I agree that plastics are here to stay for many reasons, but the reasons you list above aren't them. We had frozen foods before we had plastic packaging. Fresh foods need not be in plastic (they even have plastic-like vegetable bags made from cellulose these days, but there is nothing wrong with brown paper bags), baked goods don't require plastic (light cardboard with or without a wax coating works fine), and as you point out, rice (and anything similar) can be sold in burlap bags, no plastic required. You can sell liquids in metal cans or glass bottles.

Shelf lives will be shorter (sometimes a lot shorter, sometimes only minimally), the product will probably not be as attractive while sitting on the shelf (no little plastic window means I can't see the donuts in the box I am buying, the horror), transportation costs may increase (glass is heavy), but the reasons "we can't" are all because "we do business a little differently now" and not because some fundamental property of plastic makes it so. If you're over, say, 40, it is not hard to remember a world not dominated by single use plastics.

That's a possibility. Luckily, there are a whole bunch of "blue" counties you can use as a control. How did drug de-criminalization do in e.g. Portland?

To provide context on this one: Darth Cheeto was talking about China's growing market share in the auto industry and warned that if Biden were elected to a second term it would result in a "bloodbath" for the domestic auto industry. The media reported this as "Trump warns that if he doesn't win, there will be a bloodbath" implying he was calling for insurrection.

If he leaves it in the garage he should get his insurance adjusted for like 500 miles per year. (I assume it comes out _sometimes_ or he wouldn't need to register or insure it at all...)

And if he then drives 50K miles the next year, should he backpay the insurance company more money for that year?

They've just gotta make it clear to people that they're not allowed to cut the turbines in to little pieces and eat them.

We can debate "better' but requiring additional services, requiring the covering of pre-existing conditions, and requiring children to be allowed to remain on their parents plans long after they were "children" was not ever going to make healthcare cheaper.

Err... no. The entire point of Starlink is that it's not in a high orbit like e.g. Hughes is because high orbit = high latency.

Remember: under capitalism, man exploits man... but under communism, it's the other way around.