This is so bleak. You’re introducing 4-year-olds to machine-generated garbage and teaching them it’s normal before they even have a fighting chance to develop literacy and taste.
So what? If you can generate all goods and services without anyone else's help, you'll just do that. You don't need other people buying what you produce. You don't need other people at all, except for a very small number of servants.
> Sorry, is there a "you can ignore the courts if it's deportation" clause I missed somewhere?
No, but you are arguing in a very annoying style.
Nobody is claiming it's good or okay that this is happening. What people are discussing is whether it's likely that Trump will order people to ignore the court in this case. This is just a question of predicting probabilities, not morality.
And, indeed, the administration has been dropping the ball on following rulings in low-level deportation cases, but hasn't really ignored, or ordered people to ignore, major big-ticket Supreme Court cases. You can't really use one as evidence for the other. This is what people were pointing out to you.
But you took them pointing out this factual distinction as somehow defending Trump, which it is not.
Imagine you said of a known thief: "that guy will surely murder someone, look at his long criminal record!" and someone responded "but all his crimes are petty theft, none involve violence". It'd be illogical for you to then get indignant that the other person was defending theft or claiming it's not bad.
> And, indeed, the administration has been dropping the ball on following rulings in low-level deportation cases, but hasn't really ignored, or ordered people to ignore, major big-ticket Supreme Court cases.
They did exactly that in the Garcia case, which was a "big-ticket SCOTUS case". It became politically untenable and they eventually backed down, but the post-ruling response was initially "nuh uh!"
They didn’t ignore it, at most they bullshitted for a while about how they couldn’t bring Garcia back because he was in the hands of the El Salvador and then ultimately did bring him back.
>it's likely that Trump will order people to ignore the court in this case.
He sure is confirming his contempt for the court right now on live TV.
Trying to drum up support for his hate against anything sesible in his sight.
Edit: This just in . . . he is peeved, his face just turned so red it bled plum through the orange layer. People should review this on Youtube later if nothing else for this alone. The most meaningful thing in the rant :)
Edit2: And . . . he's announcing additional tarriffs in real time. You can't make this up.
Canada is 70% white where the US is close to 50%. That 20% puts them far above the majority line though. Not at all homogeneous, just much more so than the US.
I will say that perogies are amazing and were much cheaper in Alberta than Newfoundland so you get an upvote. But don’t discount that this is also true of the white population in the US.
"White" is not one ethnicity or culture -- a lot of that 70% are French-speaking Quebeckers who surely cannot be considered part of a homogeneous mass with Anglo-Canadians.
I’m upvoting you because you’re 110% right but don’t discount how diverse the US is too, without an obvious divider like that. The New Orleans Cajun are also French immigrants, for example.
Asians and indigenous people from the Americas are somewhat closely related (the Americas were populated from Asia not too terribly long ago, about 20,000 years), so it makes sense.
That's hard to answer because the advantage is essentially infinitely large. Engines never lose or draw against unassisted humans. Any modern chess engine, if it plays 100 games against any human (even magnus), will have a record of 100 wins, 0 draws, and 0 losses. This is true both in standard chess and Chess960.
A fair match has never been played between humans and computers. Let's say we have a fair match:
* 100 games, to have some statistical relevance.
* One move per day, so that being tired is no disadvantage (engine can ponder all day).
* Human has access to endgame tablebases and opening databases, like the engine.
* Human can make notes and has a software like Chess Position Trainer, which can min max, like the engine.
If the human is a GM with Elo 2700+ I predict 25 draws and 5 wins for the human. The engine wins 70 games.
> Rating Stockfish against a human scale, such as FIDE Elo, has become virtually impossible. The gap in strength is so large that a human player cannot secure the necessary draws or wins for an accurate Elo measurement.
You're way off the mark here on modern engine strength.
There are many examples of top players playing Leela Knight Odds. And none of them even got remotely close to a decent record. Usually a few draws, and maybe a win. But almost entirely losses.
And that is with knight odds. Without that, zero chance.
I expect this would hurt humans more than machines... but I'd love if someone with better knowledge than me of the current state of chess engines could chime in.
> As a practical example let's say you take a date to your local trendy sushi place. You both get gold-leafed deep fried Wagyu fatback tuna rolls and some Yuzu duck fat-washed 50-year-old whiskey highballs. The final bill is $100
