Skip Navigation

Posts
1
Comments
1114
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Honestly you’re just showing your complete lack of knowledge on the topic. Using your logic, downloading a pirated movie and watching it myself, then immediately deleting it, is not copyright infringement.

    Despite the fact that it literally is.

  • I mean, why are you confident the work in textbooks is correct? Both have been proven unreliable, though I will admit LLMs are much more so.

    The way you verify in this instance is actually going through the work yourself after you’ve been shown sources. They are explicitly not saying they take 1+1=3 as law, but instead asking how that was reached and working off that explanation to see if it makes sense and learn more.

    Math is likely the best for this too. You have undeniable truths in math, it’s true, or it’s false. There are no (meaningful) opinions on how addition works other than the correct one.

  • I just like calling out bullshit mah dude, don’t take it personally.

  • Weird you’d downvote someone you think is agreeing with you. ¯(ツ)

  • K

  • This response is pretty weird.

  • Honestly would be hard to do. There a perfectly legitimate and everyday uses for pretty much everything used in fingerprinting. Taking them away or obscuring them in one way or another would break so much.

  • I’m sorry, are you trying to suggest that shady situations in support of the candidate I prefer would be a good thing, while the same actions by a candidate I dislike would be bad?

    Are your morals that flexible? Does hypocrisy run wild through your standards? Because that’s the only way your reply could make sense to me.

  • TLDR for anyone reading: Do not do this!

    There is a very well laid out reason by @becausechemistry@lemm.ee in this thread, but suffice to say this is dangerous to an extreme and is not worth the risk to save a little money.

  • You can tell when you engage and ask questions that require actual thought. Bring up the fact that many third party candidates have been shown to literally be in the race to confuse voters or pull votes away from other candidates, and they no longer want to engage, attempting to steer the conversation away from that topic.

    The fact that they won’t even acknowledge it happens, which is an objective fact, is proof enough for me to believe that’s what they are attempting.

  • It’s crucial to acknowledge that there have been documented cases where candidates have entered races specifically to confuse voters or draw votes away from a particular party. Ignoring these tactics is just as dangerous to democracy as discounting the role of third parties.

    While I understand your commitment to voting for the candidate that aligns with your beliefs, it’s essential to consider how these strategies can impact the electoral process as a whole. Recognizing these issues doesn’t undermine the value of third-party candidates; rather, it highlights the complexities and challenges within our political system.

  • I appreciate your perspective, but I’m trying to understand how your response relates to the specific topic I raised. It seems like you sidestepped the issue I mentioned regarding third-party candidates and their potential impact on elections.

    I also want to clarify that I’m not being uncivil; I’m simply expressing my concerns about the broader implications of voting choices. It’s important to consider how those choices might affect the country as a whole.

    Are you suggesting that the viewpoint about the intentional confusion created by some candidates isn’t worthy of respect? I’m a bit confused, and I’d appreciate your help in clearing this up.

  • Me: “You didn’t address the topic…”

    You: “I spoke clearly!”

    Good job, buddy. Good job.

  • That was a great 6 paragraph comment, but you didn’t actually address the literal one topic I was referring to. Like, at all.

  • They aren’t preventing you from entering, they are accepting your entry and taking you into border patrol custody for failure to comply.

    I don’t actually know the proper terminology, but there’s nothing stopping them from arresting you for non compliance. They have broad power within 100 miles of a border crossing.

  • They won’t try to crack your pin at airports either, they just force you to enter it against your will, under threat of arrest.

  • Oh, yall are back. You’ve got a good source on this one finally right? The last guy just kinda poofed when it was pointed out that their assertions made no damn sense.

  • Yeah, what? 3.1 not getting updates has nothing to do with this. Software developed for 3.1 can still be updated. This article is just silly.