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.

I guess that depends on how you interpreted that information. I always have interpreted (and would like the media/govt to adopt) it to mean the Russian Government (the Kremlin, not the Russian people), the North Korean Government (not its people), etc. that were our enemies and when looked at that way, it is clear who the real enemy is; Government. It is inherently evil, a currently necessary evil, unfortunately, but an evil nonetheless. Our government is no different.

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

I suppose that depends on the power draw/demands of the camera you are using. For instance, I used to get a cheap USB-powered WiFi camera going off a cheap rechargable Li-On Battery pack. I'd get about 1.5-2 hours with a full battery. For longer times or a higher-powered camera, use a better battery all the way up to UPS (pure sine wave) size, these can get up to 20 KVA and still provide a 110V plug. It just depends on your budget and size restrictions.

You can go ahead and remove the "Battery-powered" from the requirements list as with a little ingenuity and resourcefulness one can turn a plug-in camera into a battery-powered one relatively easily.

Incorrect, what people believe is irrelevant. It has to directly call for imminent lawless destruction/violence to be incitement otherwise it is legally protected free speech.

That is correct it doesn't extend to incitement. What is at issue is what legally defines incitement and Trump's speech does not fit within that definition as he never called for violence, he called for peaceful protest, to cheer the lawmakers that are challenging the electoral votes, none of which can be construed as incitement. Trust me, if this speech can be considered incitement, then many people were guilty of incitement after the 2016 election and subsequent destructive/violent protests as well as the BLM riots over the summer.

One doesn't have an explicit constitutional right to play with fire though unlike speech so the comparison is irrelevant. Look up case law on incitement and see for yourself how his speech does not fall within it.

How about this? All posts can be posted. Posts suspected of being illegal are referred to the authorities for their follow-up with all available logs/identifying information of the poster. The post is not deleted because it is now evidence of a possible crime. Only after the crime has been adjudicated by the legal system to actually be illegal can it be deleted. Users have the option to hide suspected illegal posts from their view. I think this is reasonable and allows legal decisions to be handled by law enforcement and the courts and should absolve the platform of liability as they referred it to the authorities.

You are either an idiot or completely ignorant if you think the generic verb "fight" is a call for violence. That term is used all the time, by everybody, in contexts that clearly do not include violence. It is the opposite of give up, there are many ways to "fight" something you are against, most of which do not include violence. This verbal disagreement could be considered a fight by some. Stop putting meaning into words that isn't there, he clearly said peaceful patriotic protest to make your voices heard. Or shall we rewind the tape over the last 4 years and remove and silence every politician from office that told their supporters to fight Trump and his administration, or any high-profile person saying that they feel like blowing up the white house, or when the last time someone in their profession assassinate the President, or take to the streets. Open your eyes, no one survives with this low bar of incitement and you know it.

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.