Chuck Norris is admittedly hard to beat in combat, but Bruce Schneier is NP-hard.

Chuck Norris once threw some scrambled eggs at Bruce Schneier, so Bruce unscrambled them and threw them back.

Chuck Norris was once proud, seeing his work featured at a theater. That is, until Bruce Schneier came along and showed it was security theater.

Chuck Norris once opened fire on Bruce Schneier, but nothing can ever get through Bruce's firewall.

When Chuck Norris anesthetized Bruce Schneier, he made Bruce recite the digits of pi backwards from the end.

And none of it is ok.

It's one thing for these monsters to persuade others (or even believe) they are authorized by god and to encourage others to commit these acts but others should not be under the same illusion: law is a fiction used to justify acts - even if laws were*intended* to create balance, fairness, safety etc - which is not universally so - by far.

Look at the way the people making the laws behave around laws: Trump/Bibi have committed how many illegal acts recently? Does it in any way moderate their choices? Not that I can see yet somehow they paint the picture that those in other societies must abide by their pronouncements when they don't even follow the laws of their own society or the world at large.

'We' should stop using law as the fake justification for despicable acts and just admit to self interest and monstrous tendencies which need an outlet.

Chuck Norris once forgot his password, so he asked Bruce Schneier to decrypt it from the "x" in /etc/passwd.

Chuck Norris once tried to use a hand grenade to blow Bruce Schneier into insignificant bits, but it didn't work because Bruce's bits were all most significant.

Bruce Schneier knows Chuck Norris' private key.

I have a deal with my wife. If something bad happens to her and Keith Richards is still alive, then I am required to take "heroic measures," no matter how dignity-defying and cruel, no matter how expensive, to keep her technically alive, even if she's a hopelessly braindead vegetable.

Only after Keith Richards is dead, may I actually use my judgement to decide her fate. She must outlive Keith Richards if there is any possible way I can make that happen.

And here I thought that 'AI' was supposed to be leading to a flowering of specialized-for-purpose software that would previously have been infeasible to build due to resource constraints; but one of the most heavily capitalized outfits in the bubble can't cope with a chromium reskin and a couple of electron apps?

You mean to tell me you didn't like Windows 98 OR Windows ME? How is that possible??

Fix the problem by writing more code? Watch me.

While that's true, a responsible generation aims to boost the next generation to a *higher* level than the education they received. The world has become more complex and faster-paced, and even if that weren't true, the consequenes of aiming high and falling short are better than the consequences of aiming for the status quo and falling short.

So while I'm 100% onboard with skepticism that technology will magically make education better, I think the argument that "the education I got worked for me should be good for them" isn't a strong argument. What we need is a better ecducation that would have been a better education fifty years ago: stronger math, science, and language skills, general knowledge, and, I think critical thinking and media literacy. Possibly emotional intelligence -- it's kind of pointless to teach people critcial thinking skills if they are carried away by emotions.

Or Windows 7. Or XP. Or 3.1. All of which had a more usable interface.