LOGIC💣

You know who definitely have $1M?

The leaders of MS-13.

We don’t know the exact circumstances, but CBP stands for Customs and Border Protection.

I’ve heard of Customs agents demanding people let them search phones without a warrant and without probable cause, and so foreigners can be refused entry. We probably all heard the story of it happening for a person who had a meme of JD Vance on his phone.

But the article says that this guy is based out of Atlanta, so I’m guessing he’s a US citizen. I’m not sure they can refuse entry to a US citizen based on this.

Either way, you should never give permission to anybody to search your phone. Maybe you’ve broken a law that you didn’t know was a law, and you’ve just handed the evidence over to the police. Or maybe you have evidence that can convict somebody else who didn’t know they broke a law.

I don’t know what this means for people crossing the US border. Now is a bad time to enter the United States.

“Oh, Mamdani could be violating the Constitution? Which part? Actually, please give us a quick overview of the structure of the Constitution, maybe just one sentence on each Article and each Section, and each Amendment, and then when you get to the part that Mamdani violated, make sure to let us know.”

The “cruel and unusual punishment” section should have an exception for irony.

It’s more like the ancient phenomenon of spaghetti code. You can throw enough code at something until it works, but the moment you need to make a non-trivial change, you’re doomed. You might as well throw away the entire code base and start over.

And if you want an exact parallel, I’ve said this from the beginning, but LLM coding at this point is the same as offshore coding was 20 years ago. You make a request, get a product that seems to work, but maintaining it, even by the same people who created it in the first place, is almost impossible.

I’ve not heard this. What’s wrong with CBS news?

I haven’t read the article, but I have read previous accusations of the same thing, so I assume it’s the same.

Basically, the new AI companies are all losing money, but they are all investing big money in each other which makes it look like the industry is doing well.

Skandalakis (I can’t believe that’s actually his name) said he appointed himself to the case because every other prosecutor refused the case.

Skandalakis was forced to either appoint himself or let the case be dismissed because there are no prosecutors.

I’m not sure why he asked the judge to dismiss the case. Considering it already got several convictions, it seems ridiculous. Maybe Skandalakis is also corrupt. Maybe he’s scared. Maybe it’s because it’s too hard to prosecute while Trump is president.

Regardless, I’m tired of seeing all of these criminals go unpunished. Everybody who is letting them off is a collaborator.

Sounds something like contempt of court. The judge could order they be arrested and held in jail until she is presented in court.

This is a reminder that if you own a car, get a window breaker/seat belt cutter tool, and keep it in an easy-to-reach location in your car. They cost less than $10. After a crash, doors can get stuck or they may be locked, and seat belts may be hard to disengage. These tools are not only useful for your own car. If any bystander had that tool, they could have assisted regardless of the car model.

For these types of stories, I always think of traffic laws and speed limits, specifically because most people are familiar with breaking those laws.

“The speed limit here is 30 miles per hour. You should not drive over the speed limit.”

“We need to investigate this person because he is telling people to follow the law.”

This reasoning is sort of unthinkable and unfair.

392,000 people were tricked by a person who isn’t even smart enough to use a VPN.

not all grand jury members saw the final version

They’re phrasing it this way because technically the foreperson had to sign the final version.

But most likely, the foreperson wouldn’t have expected deception and malfeasance from Halligan, and simply assumed they were signing the indictment that had previously been presented, or that it didn’t matter if there were differences.

So, technically the foreperson saw the final version of the indictment. But for all intents and purposes, you might as well say that none of the grand jury members saw the indictment.

Oh there definitely is a way to defend it.

Reading your comment, I have realized that you are correct, there are at least several ways to defend it contrary to what I said, but I think your specific example is flawed.

Trans people are evil incarnate trying to destroy humanity.

I said it was impossible to defend “without basing it on bigotry,” and that is simple bigotry. I do agree with you that this is almost certainly the sort of argument you’d hear from a Trump supporter.

Like I said, though, reading your comment, I did realize that it’s theoretically possible to defend without bigotry, just as long as you allow fantasy and insanity as defenses. Like, if they say, “God told me it was the job of religious people to take away the pensions of trans people,” that would not be bigotry.

Also, sheer ignorance and stupidity can be a non-bigoted defense. You know, like, “Trump would never do something evil. Therefore, this must be good.”

There may even be some sort of pedantic defense, something like, “People who are dishonorably discharged are supposed to lose their pension.” (I don’t know that they were dishonorably discharged, or that people who are dishonorably discharged are supposed to lose their pensions. It’s just an example of how there might be a pedantic argument.)

I’d be interested if there was actually an argument that could be used to defend Trump that didn’t insult everybody’s intelligence, though.

I hate to say anything positive about this situation, but sometimes, it’s nice to have definitive, unambiguous evidence that you’re fighting on the side of good against evil. There is no way to defend the Trump administration here without basing it on bigotry.

In the main picture, about half of those videos use filters that do something based on the location of the person’s head. Unless they’ve changed the definition since I went to college, that would be classified as a type of computer vision, aka AI.

The question isn’t whether a flung sandwich can cause bodily harm. It’s whether that flung sandwich did cause bodily harm. They do make that clear in the article. The title simply doesn’t reflect that.

Also, like they talked about in the article, the evidence didn’t match the officer’s testimony. He said that the sandwich exploded all over him and got mustard everywhere. But pictures of the sandwich after it landed showed the wrapper still fully covering the sandwich.

The guy who threw the sandwich probably committed some sort of minor crime, but it wasn’t the one he was charged with, and it’s hard to believe the prosecution when their star witness seems to be lying his ass off.

$2000 a person won’t even offset the additional cost from the ACA subsidy reduction. So, a one-time check that would only cover several months of the recurring cost that he’s given us.

Imagine you are a government. You train soldiers to become elite killing machines. Then, you abuse them and abandon them when they are suffering.

The US has been doing this exact thing for centuries to untold numbers of soldiers. I’d have expected at least a few Punishers to have been created. The abuse reliably creates alcoholics, but not Punishers, and I don’t really understand why.

Stop appeasing Nazis.