I am pursuing competence in HTML, CSS and JavaScript through freecodecamp.org because I have off-line browser applications in mind that I want to create. I do not ask A.I. to create such projects for me because I want to understand exactly how the applications work so that I can change them or correct them as needed.

As I study, I frequently ask A.I. what is the correct code and syntax for what I want to do. This helps me avoid wasting time trying to figure out the correct code and syntax. It helps me learn, but I also think that it is a good way to code, and I expect to continue using A.I. even after I am fairly conversant with all the coding that I want to do.

However, I bring a lot of experience with legal research questions for prisoner-rights lawsuits, and I believe that I am able to write questions (prompts) that are more logical and precise than questions written by other amateurs in general.

Obviously, with A.I., the quality and precision of the question is everything, and a cogent question will often lead to a surprisingly cogent and detailed answer.

A professional coder would most likely get better answers, but not necessarily so. I've watched and listened to a few gurus on YouTube, and many of them babble incoherently and change focus like splashing water. I imagine that they have to be part of team to get anything done or to have any goals in life. Can they slow down and ask a terse, focused, and logical question? If so, A.I. could shorten their tasks; but, if not, A.I. might get blamed for wasting their time.

As a Nevada Prisoner, I was criminally charged for battering another prisoner (another Tuesday in prison). The legislative history of the statute clearly shows that legislators were reluctant to support the statute if it were to be enforced against prisoner-on-prisoner batteries, and the Nevada Attorney General's Office assured that prisoner-on-prisoner batteries would continue to be handled administratively with internal prison disciplinary procedures, and that the focus of the intended statute was solely to prosecute prisoners for batteries upon staff and other free citizens. After the statute was enacted, everything worked as intended for many years. But, after litigious prisoners continued to be litigious, the statute was used to prosecute and convict a litigious prisoner, Robert Michenfelder, for a prisoner-on-prisoner battery. The second litigious prisoner to be prosecuted and convicted for a prisoner-on-prisoner battery was me, Ray Donald Pratt. I elected to represent myself and immediately started laying the groundwork for an affirmative defense, etc. An affirmative defense in prison cases necessarily accuses the prison officials of not providing a safe environment. When it became apparent in a public court hearing that I was going to loudly assert an affirmative defense, my next court hearing had no members of the public in attendance. They ultimately stripped me of my right to self-representation, claiming that I was not competent to represent myself. Humorously, this was shortly after my published win on appeal while representing myself in Pratt vs. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1987). Ultimately, I ended up with two more felony convictions (battery by a prisoner and prisoner in possession of a weapon) for the unstated crime of being smart in a no-smart zone, i.e., for being successfully litigious. I think that say more about them than about me. I didn't realize, of course, that the UK could be worse.

A government attorney can be attracted to making a claim that evidence or reasons for an action need to be withheld to protect secrets of various kinds. Such a claim short-circuits our adversarial legal system by not allowing opposing counsel to explore the evidence or claims being relied on by the government. A judge, rarely having the same facts available to him as opposing counsel, does not have the same ability as opposing counsel to present facts that belie a government attorney's otherwise specious arguments that secrecy is required. A judge can look at the government's claimed facts about the need for secrecy in an in camera review without opposing counsel being present, but a judge's ability and descretion to challenge those facts is limited.

Worse still, the court itself is a political animal where the judges and justices were recommended to their positions for being team players. Fighting a government claim for the need for secrecy is a hard legal battle. (Happily, the lower courts are showing little deference to Team Trump's specious arguments in a lot of cases.)

As a litigious prisoner, I once brought a claim for inadequate cell lighting that was causing me to suffer eye pain during my legal research. When I submitted discovery requests regarding the cell and lighting, an Arizona Assistant Attorney General (Bueler?) argued under U.S. Supreme Court prison cases that the information is privileged against discovery because it could compromise prison security. I, in turn, opposed by arguing under more general cases that a government claim of secrecy fails when the information has already been revealed, and such was the case when the state put me in the cell. The judge ruled in my favor, and I got a dumb-ass simple diagram of the cell.

The case was ultimately dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal because the pain that I suffered was "anectdotal". Team players are a problem, and Trump might have a few.

Nonetheless, I would suggest that this wind-farm case has enough publicity and importance that the team players might avoid the public embarrassment of being judged team players after a proper argument is brought against the government's arguments for secrecy. Go for it!

Gun manufacturers are often sued on similar grounds, and those lawsuits always fail. There is an insufficient nexus between the lawful manufacture and sale of firearms and instances of misuse of firearms. Chip manufacturers, likewise, cannot reasonably foresee and prevent third parties from diverting chips to Russia any more than a gun manufacturer can know that any particular person will misuse a gun. Furthermore, Ukraine incited Russia's entry into the Ukrainian civil war by first overthrowing a lawful democracy and then by oppressing, attacking and killing ethnic Russian Ukrainians. Russia had a natural right and even a duty to intervene on behalf of fellow ethnic Russians. I have no sympathy for the arguments of the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi regime.

My best legal work as a litigious maximum-security convict deserved crisp, pure, hand-printed letters that are best mirrored by the Arial font. However, court rules sometimes require Times New Roman, although particular judges sometimes require Arial or other fonts within their particular court-room, and those exceptions are also enshrined in a court's local rules for those particular judges. Times New Roman, for me, is too artsy and is less communicative than Arial because Times New Roman requires a cognitive effort to look past the serif adornments. Those who are more interested in snobbery than substance will choose Times New Roman, whereas those who value easy readability for the sake of elucidating substance will choose Arial.

Israel would not have asked Google and Amazon to send a secret code unless Israel already believed that it could trust Google and Amazon. I suppose that anyone should be free to support whatever they wish with their business operations, but I am also free to not want to support businesses that support baby-starving and child-murdering Israel. I've already deleted my Facebook account, and I have signed up for Proton email to transition away from Gmail, and I think that I may have to avoid Amazon as well. Michael Dell of Dell Computers was involved in a group that asked New York Mayor Eric Adams to use the police to break up anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, and so I will never own a Dell computer, free or otherwise. I care about my free-speech rights, and I do not want to financially support businesses that despise free speech. I would ask everyone to join me.

If the AI data has access to current and past news, then it could be giving Trump's business methods a high ranking. One of Trump's business moves was to have his attorneys claim 'an act of God' under a contract to avoid paying a subcontractor. Trump, as President, has invoked national security risks in support for everything from deportations without due process and as justification for tariffs, etc. He has even declared peaceful Jewish protesters at Columbia to be violent anti-Semites. An AI might follow Trump's general reasoning pattern and start invoking nuclear options for missed deliveries and payments and might call the FBI to investigate. Several posts on this thread have picked up on the Trump angle as a possible influence on the AI LLM's. The researchers should add a value tag of "known idiot" to all things Trump to save their models from poor reasoning.

Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), whenever an entity or person is a public figure and sues for being defamed, they must not only prove that the statements about them were false and caused harm to their reputation (defamatory statements), but as a public figure they must also prove that the false statements were made with "actual malice." The Court wanted to protect the First Amendment right of anyone to discuss matters of wide public importance without fear of being found guilty of libel or slander for mistakenly making a false statement.

In televised legislative hearing in the Arizona legislature, several irregularities involving the Dominion voting machines were identified, such as a Dominion voting machine being reprogrammed during the election, and both Dominion and the Democratic officials refusing to reveal information.

As such, under New York Times v. Sullivan, Fox News could have easily defeated Dominion's libel suit, even if Fox New's suppositions about the Dominion voting machines could have been proven false. I could have won the case on behalf of Fox News if it were legal for me to represent them. I'm a maximum-security ex-con with over 15 years experience litigating for myself (see, e.g., Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817 (9th Cir., 1987)), and after I was released I earned an AAS-Legal Assistant degree, with honors, through an American Bar Association approved course of study. I believe that there was no compelling legal reason for Fox News to settle the case and pay Dominion millions of dollars.

I'm inclined to suspect that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News at the time, deliberately gutted his perfectly legitimate defense under New York Times v. Sullivan and that he paid millions of dollars in a settlement to help create fear in others about 'defaming' Dominion. It is perhaps the case that Dominion served the interests of powerful political groups acting in concert to subvert American democracy. In fact, the settlement money from Fox News may have even been provided by other persons or entities and then laundered by Fox News, or the settlement monies may have been reimbursed, for it seems unlikely that Fox News would pay millions of dollars in an unnecessary settlement when Fox News otherwise had a perfectly good legal defense.

Something doesn't add up, and I don't actually know what does add up, but the settlement invites suspicions.

"Disinformation" researchers from the Atlantic Council think tank have just expanded my understanding of how those with Zionist butt-hurt feelings about the news are taking action to censor alternative press outlets. Throughout the Western world, we are seeing governments take action against news organizations that are allegedly spreading "disinformation" and "misinformation." Those catch-phrases may be an identifying link between governmental and private persons and entities that are conspiring to make Zionist butt-hurt feelings more important than eveyone else's rights.

I respect anyone's right to have a low opinion of any news outlet, but I do not respect anyone setting themself up as the arbiter of what is "disinformation" and "misinformation" and then barring me from visiting and reading my favorite news sites.

All the US officials involved in the order to bar RT.com and Sputnikglobe.com are Jewish and presumably Zionist (the effect of their efforts will be to protect Israel from honest news and criticism). The US officials are Antony Blinken, et al., of the US State Department; Janet Yellen of the US Treasury Department; and, Merrick Gardner of the US Department of Justice and as the US Attorney General. I expect that the world will find more Zionists pulling the strings in similar censorship efforts throughout the Western world, and they will be using the catch-phrases of "disinformation" and "misinformation."

"Russian meddling" was created by Hillary Clinton. She paid for the false "Steele dossier", and every accusation against Russia and every allegation against Trump revolved around that hoax. We have recently seen reincarnations of such allegations, but they really shouldn't bother us much until Ivan from the FSB shows up at our door and offers us cash. We shouldn't trust the Microsoft Threat Assessment Center to warn us about disinformation from anywhere since none of us are getting any such disinformation. Our own candidates and government officials are supplying plenty enough of that. Have you gotten any disinformation from foreign sources? Thought not. Microsoft founder Bill Gates recently gave Kamala 50 million dollars, and that's what I think this story is about: beating a dead horse and trying to pump it up with air, again!

The effort to limit China's technological advancement is only one piece of a larger effort to ostracize both Russia and China economically. The US dollar is massively over-indebted, but the better-managed currencies and economies of both Russia and China are relatively debt-free. Eventually, there are going to be significant changes in world-wide capital flows investing in Russian and Chinese ventures, as well as world-wide changes in currency valuations.

Western banking interests (at the level of the Rothschilds) is going to suffer immensely as these inevitable world-wide financial changes come to be. So, the Zionist US State Department (discussion below) supported Neo-Nazis in their overthrow of the legitimately elected democratic government in Ukraine in 2014, and the US chose the new leaders and provided weapons, munitions and funds to support the coup government's attacks for eight years against ethnic Russian Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine who refused to be ruled over by the coup government. Russia immediately secured its military base in Crimea and reintegrated Crimea into Russia by a democratic vote.

Western sanctions soon followed. Not war, but only economic sanctions, and that was the whole point of the US State Department creating the Russia-Ukraine conflict so that the West would have cause to rally the West to isolate Russia economically. More sanctions have followed after Russian intervened eight years later on behalf of the ethnic Russians being attacked in Ukraine.

Likewise, the pending conflict between China and Taiwan is being stoked by the US to create cause to isolate China economically.

The US effort to create a bubble around the West where the debts of the US dollar would just be business as usual without any comparisons to the ruble or yuan failed when Saudi Arabia refused to increase energy supplies and lower prices to make up for the banned supplies from Russia.

Nonetheless, the show must go on, and we see continued efforts to ostracize both Russia and China economically, and chips are just one sector of that effort. The only other alternative is WW III so that the West can write off its debts.

All the senior staff at the US State Department are said to be either Jewish or have Jewish spouses (per a calmly-worded Internet post). My guess is that these anomalous personnel promotions (and firings) started happening after Henry Kissinger became the US Secretary of State. In other words, all the senior staff at the US State Department are double-agents for Israel and, by extension, for Jewish banking interests. As further evidence, A large number of mid-level and lower-level staff at the US State Department have signed a letter complaining that the senior staff are all pro-Israel and that they are not reporting war crimes being committed by Israel.

I suspect that Israel and Jewish banking interests are trying to use the US State Department to lead the US into starting WW III by attacking Iran; and, the senior staff at the US State Department don't seem to know how to negotiate a ceasefire. Russia has a base in Iran, so do the math.

The war against Chinese chip-making ability is only a small part of a much larger potential war.

Since the SWIFT system already does bank-to-bank clearances, this effort by the IMF is an admission that SWIFT is in trouble because the Russian and Chinese clearance systems are taking hold in the world. No country wants to do business with countries that freezes their bank funds at will for political reasons. This effort by the IMF to create a system with a blank slate will fail because everyone knows that the IMF would support western sanctions and seizures of property and funds. The Russian and Chinese clearance systems are trusted because both countries continue to do business with those who are opposed to them, giving all countries hope that they could do business through those clearance systems without the risk of having their funds seized for political reasons. Watch! The IMF system will become a toy system used by the West alongside SWIFT, but it will go no further. The West's dominance over world financial transactions is waning and will all but die. We did it to ourselves, and we can only reverse its decline by changing our political attitudes towards countries that disagree with us and towards high-value sectors of other countries economies that outperform us. In other words, we need to get back to work instead of working at being thugs.

I fell in love with pdfdrive.com because it allowed me to search for and download texts that sometimes are not even being sold anymore. Further, even when I have the actual book, I find that it is easier to both read and keep my bookmark automatically when reading a .pdf on my computer (I used to prefer books because it is easier to see where you are at in the book and jump around, but trying to read a book and keep it open can be a pain). So, when I saw this news article that terabytes of .pdf documents were available for free, I thought that I would test it by searching for a .pdf copy of any book. Maybe someone knows something that I don't, but I couldn't get S3 browser to find a particular book (a book that I already own). PDFdrive.com is being attacked in some way and it has not worked for me in over a week (though there is a workaround through a site with a different domain ending). For someone with both limited funds, access to materials, or even a lack of knowledge about what's available regarding any given subject, pdfdrive.com has been a Godsend, and it would have been nice if the free .pdf database described in the article could have been used the same way.

We have great organizations like Code Pink in the U.S. that send veteran protestors and leaders like Ms. Madea Benjamin to harrass, heckle and humiliate officials like Antony Blinken at public hearings. This sort of protest is absolutely legal, though not tolerated. Ms. Madea Benjamin and others are hauled out of such public hearings like rail cars being pulled by choo choos, or more accurately, by the po po. In comparison, we have Chinese paid thugs verbally harassing and verbally threatening (what? no details?) political dissidents. For expressing political views towards specific individuals, these Chinese individuals are being called criminals and are being charged as such. The exact same behavior by U.S. citizens is constitutionally-protected political protest and free speech. The only two Chinese suspects in the U.S. have been accused of setting up a Chinese police station in New York. One thing that a police station has are one or more holding cells that have been used to detain one or more suspects from time to time. How much do you want to bet that the secret police station has some suspicious looking broom and mop closets?

I hate being censored in any fashion, and companies like OpenWeb, which provide moderator services for news-site posting boards, are extremely aggressive and will censor and remove posts for just mentioning the initials "BDS" (the Palestinian Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement). Slashdot has great news articles, and I am sometimes motivated to comment, but I have had posts removed, and--as you now say--"modded." I think that the U.K. in general takes a more active role in censorship, and Slashdot is often a team player and has one or more moderators who seem to work as government watchdogs or score editors. That's fine, everyone needs a hustle, and any harder job is just that, a harder job. And, honestly, its hard to find any site that is not being blocked and censored these days, whether in the E.U. or the U.S. They didn't delete my post, and that's a plus, and I'll take the win.