it might be a bot, but nobody is spending the significant resources that would be required to actually train an LLM (chatbot) on one slashdot user's comments. using them in few-shot prompts, maybe. you'd be better off trying prompt injection attacks instead of poisoning.

also your seemingly offtopic responses further down this thread suggest there might indeed be a bot here, but i think it's more likely to be you.

The Palm Pre was a smartphone released in 2009 that ran WebOS. Palm was acquired by HP in 2010. WebOS predates the HP acquisition.

Apologies for the misunderstanding, then.

The article I linked to is about "a religious wedding ceremony held in Brooklyn, in secret, with about 7000 attendees, indoors, with no social distancing, no masks", which is what I was talking about with dgatwood in the thread you replied to.

If by "this case", you're not referring to this wedding being discussed in this thread, but instead the SCOTUS case in the article, then I don't disagree with the points you make. Again, apologies for the misunderstanding. I never suggested that the participants or organizers of this wedding were party to the suit, merely that religious gatherings have been among the most egregious offenses.

If you're telling me that this is what 25-33% capacity looks like, and that no outbreaks were associated with this event, then either you're ignorant of reality or you're knowingly lying in support of your beliefs.

That being said, most commenters on this story seem unaware that NY rescinded this executive order before this case even reached SCOTUS. The dissenting opinion is quite clear that the court should not have even reached the merits of this case, since the issue was already moot. If you agree with the court's ruling (or even if you simply believe that the court should have even reached the merits of the case at all), then you support the idea of an activist judiciary. Which is fine, as long as you feel this way consistently, even when an activist judiciary is delivering rulings with an ideological slant your disagree with. Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite, like most of the other "conservatives" celebrating this ruling.

I'm not sure what logic you're referring to. My statement which you quote is a statement of fact, not a logical argument. Any conclusions drawn are your own. That being said, I don't believe draconian punishments intended to make an example of a violator are the most effective deterrent in the toolbox of justice, but I'm sure there's objective data on this subject that's more valuable than my subjective opinion.

The religious organizations that didn't put people's lives in danger are the ones which do not hold large gatherings and are therefore unaffected by the prohibition of large religious gatherings, no?

Recently, there was a religious wedding ceremony held in Brooklyn, in secret, with about 7000 attendees, indoors, with no social distancing, no masks.

But please, tell me more about how the government of NY[C] is to blame for all this nonsense.

You bring up a valid point. I would prefer for religious gatherings to be just as "okay", to use your own word, as protest gatherings.

Complete with deployment of riot police, liberal use of tear gas and rubber bullets, etc.

What was b)?

I don't think anyone on slashdot should be surprised that computation has energy costs.

If you can't afford to contribute to this worthwhile effort, then you shouldn't.

If you can, then it's a great cause. They've done a lot of great research over the years.

It's likely that most of those systems will fail to return Folding@Home work units within their allotted deadlines, sorry.

People don't, but governments do. They operate lotteries, budget for them, employ people to run them, etc.

In a discussion about epidemiology, which is concerned with the population-level impacts, individual opinions about the likelihood of self-reinfection are less meaningful. Regardless of what people "can count on", when it comes to matters of public policy, evidence of reinfection during a time period of significant mitigation (social distancing, masks, lockdown, etc.) raises even more concerns about proposed policies that oppose mitigation in favor of some hoped-for herd immunity.

so it was merely a case of this.

carry on, then.

I keep seeing this rhetorical device, an attempt to frame the debate as if society consisted primarily of healthy individuals under 50, or as though everyone else lived in isolation from them.

Indeed, the fact that healthy individuals under 50 virtually always survive (though sometimes with permanently impaired lung function) has no bearing on the fact that they're still contagious when infected, and still pose a significant threat to the lives of people who are not healthy individuals under 50 which, incidentally, constitutes a majority of the US population.

If you're asking why people resent it when the wealthiest members of society (and not a democratically elected government) end up dictating how that society prioritizes social spending, it's probably because they were indoctrinated since childhood with the belief that plutocracy is inherently bad.

Clearly you were spared this indoctrination. Congratulations!

I lived for a time in Maine, the most rural state, and I've gotta say that even there, I couldn't imagine choosing to go hunting anywhere remotely near here.