If the Brits had invaded instead of hacked pedestrian crossings you'd have had ads for Swasticar (scroll down to get the image): 0 to 1939 in just 3 seconds!

There is a reason that politicians and others will generally not comment on security matters: if they only denied things when rumours were not true then the absence of a denial becomes evidence of truth. This is not a conspiracy theory but basic logic.

That sounds completely bonkers to me and I'm completely unamerican. Once someone has been found guilty there is no presumption of innocence because they are guilty and what they have been found guilty of should be a matter of public record. Indeed, I would argue that having an open justice system where the courts operate in public and can be reported on ensures that not only is justice done but it is seen to be done.

This is critical to everyone having confidence in the justice system. It has nothing to do with vigilantism and everything to do in ensuring that the courts are not being abused by the authorities to unjustly punish people. It may not be a perfect system but having courts held in private with no public allowed to see or report on them is not my idea of a healthy justice system.

At some point they'll just start making visitors log in to their social media accounts from kiosks, and giving them boot anyways.

Lesson to all non-Americans, don't go to the United States.

Highly paid software developers are capable of formal methods and other advanced techniques, which would require a far far caster LLM to perform. So the LLM woukd still be more expensive.

Since R1 has good reasoning, but no real breadth, and is open source, the logical thing would be to modify R1 to pre-digest inputs and create an optimised input to 4.1. The logic there would be that people generally won't provide prompts ideally suited to how LLMs work, so LLM processing will always be worse than it could be.

R1 should, however, be ample for preprocessing inputs to make them more LLM-friendly.

This is more an example of gross incompetence. Trying to hide information about suspects by not releasing details only when a suspect is from certain groups is telling everyone that the suspect is from one of those groups. Instead of preventing violence against a group it insteads allows the idiots who commit such violence the freedom to pick any one of those groups and go after them: it does not preventing violence it just widens the scope for it.

Either release suspect details for everyone or don't release them for everyone. Releasing information in only certain cases is just stupid and makes the situation worse. This is not a problem with decades old UK laws, its a problem with the idiots in charge not thinking about the consequences of their actions.

Although I don't see what's wrong with invoking God, because He created the world, this is obviously false. For example, see The Developing Human Being by Keith Moore, and T.V.N. Persaud 7th edition, Elsevier, 2003: "Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (p. 2). Regarding homosexuality, apart from the abominable nature of such activity, it's also pure math: encouraging homosexuality will simply lead such societies to extinction.

We cannot prevent people from ruining their bodies, souls and the societies they live in. You are free to do so, until God says otherwise or society discovers your deception and the detrimental effect of your ideology and takes action against you.

Proxmox is free, and I've yet to find a function that a homelab would need, which isn't available in Proxmox...and a plethora of functions in Proxmox that aren't available in VMWare. The ESXi interface is a bit more intuitive, I'll grant, and Proxmox similarly requires a bit more fiddling to get things like GPU Passthrough working optimally....but with Proxmox's ESXi import tool and Veeam support on the free versions, and with ESXi's next step up being thousands of dollars annually instead of $700 once, I can't see the use case.

Plus, anyone hitching their wagon to Broadcom after two years of horror stories is just asking for trouble.

Let me guess: men can get pregnant, and women can have penises? And male chromosomes don't give athletes any inherent advantage over females?

Probably not, because at the end of the day, the iPad is a consumption device. They can be effectively leveraged for some purpose-built functions - point-of-sale terminals, punch clocks, photo booths, and customizable MIDI controllers are a few go-to examples that spring to mind, but for every iPad implemented in such a way, 100 more are used for e-mail and Tiktok and video games.

The iPad doesn't need to be a general purpose computer because the overwhelming majority of use cases - including most of the productivity-related use cases enumerated, don't require it to be, and making it so adds needless complexity on a number of levels.

So, while it is *my* logic that iOS should focus on being the best mobile consumption OS available, and that MacOS should focus on being the best general purpose computer OS available, with easy interconnects for messaging and file sharing (problems already solved by iMessage and Airdrop), in reality, each will likely get bolt-on additions between the two until the bolt-ons will be the worst elements of the other, because $deity forbid that Apple be seen as taking a break from incrementing operating systems and releasing something new that doesn't a month's salary for half the population.

So your argument is "These things I believe in because God says so can be defended, somehow, by not saying God says so, but ultimately, we are founded on God says so..."

Talk about incoherent. And economics led to the scientific revolution, not Christianity, at least not more than Islam (where a good deal of knowledge of medicine and optics came to Christianity through).

Your badly concealed argument still boils down to "God says so." Because no, you can't make an argument against reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights by anything other than invoking your God. I don't believe in your God, or in your historical revisionism either. Christian Supremacism, like white supremacism, is an evil doctrine used by those who want power over others.

Apart from equivocating over 19th and 20th century racism in the Democratic party and ignoring Nixon's Southern Strategy which inverted that curve, the Civil War was explicitly fought over slavery. You're just repeating the same Lost Cause myth that the Union allowed the former Confederate states to spread. The Confederate leaders made their reasons plainly known for secession, and it had everything to do with slavery.

...so the opposite of Windows 8 Metro

Germany banned Mein Kampf and other Nazi writings for a pretty explicit reason. Actually, it wasn't Germany itself, these bans started during the Allied occupation as a key piece of the Denazification of the country, which also included the destruction of Nazi symbols (statues, motifs, etc.), the criminal and administrative proceedings against Nazi party members, were all part of a concentrated Allied attempt to destroy the very foundations of National Socialist political doctrine in the aftermath of a brutal general war and a genocide that had seen millions of Jews, Roma and political dissidents murdered by an industrial death machine.

Perhaps if the same ethos had been applied during the Reconstruction Era, instead of just hand waving away the culpability of most the Confederate politicians, military officers and officials, and ultimately not merely permitting, but actively supporting the Lost Cause myth, the US might not be in the place it was now. The plans of men like Thaddeus Steven to essentially crush the wealthy landholding class in the South and remake the states were ultimately thwarted by those who wanted an abbreviated Reconstruction for political and commercial expediency.

If the Confederate leaders had been executed or faced lengthy imprisonment, if the former Confederate states had faced the same kind of full social and economic reconstruction that Germany (in particular West Germany and Austria) and Japan had faced, and entire generation had been raised to see clearly and without myth and celebration, just what their fathers had fought not merley to preserve, but to expand; namely, the enslavement of human beings as chattel property, and been taught the fundamental moral evil of that belief, maybe, just maybe, the poison of racism might have, if not been removed, then at least substantially mitigated, making it less likely that the ideological heirs of the slaveowners would have remained a quiet, subterranean group of malcontents, and not a powerful force at the national level, inhabiting the halls of power throughout the US.

Good, so we can now remove the Bible, the Quran and the Book of Mormon from libraries as well, right?

I'd be curious by the time we're done removing all the books from the library that we've justified with "not my tax dollars", what would be left?

What is even the point here? It looks to me like you're trying to use the "tax dollars" argument to disguise your real reasoning for wanting books banned from libraries. So why not just come out in the open and tell us what it is you want banned, and why you feel you have the right to facilitate, even in argument, the removal of these books?