Technically you are allowed to lie to MOST cops.

But there is a law that makes it illegal (5 years punishment) to lie to certain federal officials, as you referenced.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

This definitely applies to the FBI (lots of cases) and I think it applies to Border agents, but I am not as sure about that. So yes, the border agents that questions him should be able to charge him for lying.

EXCEPT:
The border agents claimed he was not entitled to a lawyer because he was legally not in the US until after he passed customs. He repeatedly asked for one.

If the court holds this to be true (unlikely) than he could argue he was not in their jurisdiction when they questioned him.

If the court says it was not true, then the courts will state anything he said cannot be used as evidence after he asked for a lawyer, including any lies he stated.

If that was what happened, you would be correct. But it is NOT what happened.He did not just try to refuse a search. He also specifically asked for a lawyer. While inside the physical US.

The border patrol stated and said that legally he was not inside the US and therefore did not have the right to a lawyer. They denied him one.

Which means either:

1) (Stupid argument in response to their stupid claim) They are correct and he was not inside the USA so the they did not have jurisdiction which means they cannot charge him with a crime for anything he did. US codes do not apply.

2) (Real argument) They denied him a lawyer when he was asked for one during a search, which means it was an ILLEGAL search and he had the legal right to destroy the evidence as they had no legal right to get it.

This is the actual argument his lawyer is already making.

"Houses" probably predate homo sapiens. They my just have looked like lean-tos, but they did the same job, just not as well. And if you demand mortared foundations, they didn't show up until the very late stone age.

The thing is, when you're mobile rather than settled, a house is a very temporary asset. And they have defects as places that house lice, fleas, etc. So you usually prefer to keep moving. Agriculture is what probably caused what we think of as houses to be created, but the first "permanent" houses were probably organic developments of the pre-existing "temporary shelters".

P.S.: Look into the construction techniques used by Chimps and Orangutans. These are called "nests", but they aren't trivial constructions, and as they're in the trees, their requirements are different from ground based constructions.

Being pro-Iran is, indeed, as silly as being pro-Israel. There's not much moral justification for either. Once upon a time there was a bit of economic justification, but as governments have changed that has mainly evaporated.

Eh? This is incorrect. Perhaps most fictional murders are premeditated, because that makes for a more interesting mystery to solve, but in real life, the vast majority murders are impulsive, spontaneous acts that happen during arguments, fights, or emotional outbursts (often with the help of alcohol and/or readily available weapons).

If you think they just track license plates you haven't been paying attention.

Let them fight.

There are definitely use cases for which it isn't needed. But that doesn't cover everything. There will ALWAYS be use cases that would require (or at least benefit from) higher connection bandwidth...and speed can often substitute nicely.

Social media is like if someone took all the problems of usenet and amplified them to the point of unusability...

Writing music (or any other creative endeavor) is not just about mimicking learned patterns, but about experimenting until you create something actually new. Models are recombining patterns using deep learning, which can give the appearance of novelty without actually being genuine creations, unless there's adequate guidance and shaping by a human. The problem is that there is a way that real inspiration and innovation *feel* which becomes delocalized when the cognitive labor is mostly offloaded to a model and thus hard to recognize, especially if you don't actually have experience doing the creative act yourself. So people who don't know how to write music will make slop, and even experienced artists could end up with stuff that is mostly slop if they're not paying very careful attention.

Plus the social value of creativity is based on recognition of the effort involved in creating novel things; many people appreciate art because it reflects human experience and human effort, which can get muddled or lost with generative AI.

I have been writing music and studying computing since childhood and studying some machine learning since I was a teen, three decades ago. I don't think all generative AI is useless or offensive (though the resource overconsumption with the LLMs-in-everything fad is a serious problem, and I do believe there is a type of expected-usage violation / consent problem with many AI vendor training sets and products). The disagreements about deep learning and generative AI (exaggerated by a bubble-driven profit motive, unfortunately) will take work to solve because new social contract concepts will have to gradually be explored and tested over the coming years by billions of humans until a general consensus is reached on what fair use now means and how intellectual "property" ethics are navigated.

I think people are asserting a lot of things which amount to gazing into a crystal ball around these topics, but there are at least two things which I feel pretty sure of based on my experience: the human creative process is much more complicated than LLM/GAN training+prompting, and actual human creativity has value which a machine is unlikely to replicate effectively at least anytime soon â" though simulacra of creativity pass enough of a capitalist sniff test to make money, detracting from the livelihoods of artists already dealing with the nightmarish economic calculus of trying to make creative things while paying the bills in the contemporary era.

Of course, litigative copyright scalping companies don't add any value to society either and are effectively just another type of nuisance; Round Hill looks to be a hedge fund manager's project to make money off others' labor without actually facilitating human creativity. Cue the infamous "I believe everyone involved in this story should die" Norm Macdonald line... (which is much more applicable here than the original transphobic "joke"!)

Well, the only better advice is "Don't put your master copy on the internet" and "Always have backups that you've checked".

That's clearly wrong, as there currently exist (very niche) applications for entanglement. I have strong doubts as to it's wide application, as the conditions for keeping it extant are so severe, but few and niche applications isn't the same as unimportant.

FWIW, ISTM that this might have application to quantum key exchange, I just don't know enough to say yes or no.

This is a study of people born in a set time period at a set location.

There were LOTS of things happening at that time. Yes sugar was rationed, but there were also a lot less chemicals being made, some new chemicals started up, jet travel became common, the men had come home, but some did not. New medicines appeared. New foods became common besides sugar.

The writers of this study picked one of thousands of potential explanations and ascribed it as the cure. They have NO EVIDENCE at all that reduced sugar was the cause.

This is the WORST possible example bad studies. It's like I looked at one of the cancer maps people make, pick a school in the center and blamed the Principal of the school for intentionally giving cancer to his students.

This study indicates Britain's of a certain age have health benefits. It does NOT indicate sugar had anything to do with it.

I believe it's not just a stunt, even if it doesn't imply what a lot of people seem to believe. (OTOH, I don't really know enough to *assert* that it's not just a stunt. I just see no reason to believe that, and decent reasons to doubt it.)