He lost me at "Power BI".

Ugh...what a POS.....it's the modern equivalent of MS Access....it gives people who can't code or design enough tool to create something they force others to use which causes time suck and damage along the way.

So what? What is the point you are attempting to make here?

To quit being a bunch of pussies....

These windows DO open, don't they?

I mean, there's always portable units you can use.

Please enough with the excuses....sit and swelter if that's what you want, but geez....get used to it, this isn't going away you know.

Fine...then sit there and swelter like it is the 1800's....I really do't give a fuck if people make excuses instead of solutions.

Slight warning....get used to it, this isn't going away you know....

I just checked, and it's 2:17AM in Seoul. It's 86F with 85% humidity! Heat index is currently at 103F, at fucking 2AM.

That's just a middling summer day in New Orleans.

Bump that humidity up a bit and then you get closer to common average days here in summer.

Mind you, my AC turns on basically end of April and usually is on till first part of November.

Thanks,, when I think 42 degrees my immediate reaction is, "I need a jacket or sweater, especially if the wind is blowing..."

Do these structures have windows? If so, you can hang window units on them, or at the very least have floor units and vent out the window.

AC does not necessarily mean Central AC systems....geez.

The US has tons of old homes without central AC that sill have AC with portable units, or window units, etc.

This is not rocket surgery.

So, do the Koreans believe in Air Conditioning, apparently unlike their European friends?

I suppose if one were to ignore 250 years of constitutional law

What "Constitutional Law"? Citation needed. Needed so badly, I'll do it for you:

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Oh, wait...

They claim it is a new show in order to avoid the equal time regulations whenever they put forth candidates, etc from one party......if not a news show, they have to give equal time to the opposing candidate/viewpoint.

people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices

Maybe, we should not, but there is not law prohibiting government to do this.

AI may be new, but the problem is not, and courts have repeatedly reaffirmed government's right to surveil us in public without any warrants (list courtesy of Grok). The second item — known as Knotts — is particularly telling...

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Besides, how can the 4th Amendment include cameras, which didn't exist in the 18th century, if the 2nd doesn't protect "assault rifles"? :-)

Usage of Flock cameras is almost certainly a violation of the 4th amendment.

It most definitely is not. The actual text of the Amendment, for your benefit:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

The camera is not peering into your pockets, or windows. It is only looking at what's publicly visible...

Very simple, obvious, common-sense argument: whatever a human policeman can see and memorize, an electronic device can record too.

Governments don't have the right to do mass general surveillance

Huh?! Why not? Let's focus on American (Federal) government in particular — what is prohibiting them from conducting "mass general surveillance"?

Not saying, it is good — or bad — just want you to substantiate your claim, that it is somehow illegal...

Im intimately familiar with range-payload charts.

You have to take my sentence as a whole - I say that its both low density and premium heavy. The low density is because of the range-payload drop off, the premium heavy is because Qantas will make more money with the premium cabin, so thats where the bulk of the weight allowance goes.

Quick question.

Can anyone here with a straight face state they truly believe "The View" is a newscast?