Terms like "white" are flexible enough to mean whatever the fascist dictatorship wants them to mean at the time, so this is more or less the same as making the constitution optional.
I'm sorry, anti-war transgender person stuck in Russia, but from our moral stance, you shouldn't be able to purchase HRT from a lab using your XMR wallet. nor should your friend be able to pay for their foreign VPN VDS that they use to bypass the internet restrictions in USDT. the projects you used for this were hosted on Codeberg and not some other platform? well, too bad, they'll have to go someplace else that minds your existence or is welcoming to cryptocurrency as a whole, and you will wait.
The article doesn't make its point very coherently especially near the end and is probably AI, but I think it kind of makes sense if you assume individual attitudes towards bad-faith media affect whether bullshit is successful, in context of the idea that the core problem is that people's susceptibility to bullshit selects for the most egregious bullshitters.
This classical model frequently positioned memory and recall as both the central enablers of, and bottlenecks in, software development.
Today’s AI-powered coding assistants are changing that. These tools function as external memory systems, offloading syntax recall, boilerplate generation, and API usage from human to machine memory.
When I was a kid I had a friend borrow my bike and watched him do this (slamming on the front brakes and being flipped over the handlebars), fortunately he wasn't injured, but I was mad because the front reflector broke off. In retrospect, it was worth it because I learned the easy way that you definitely should not do that.
Also that the default design of bike brakes is probably less safe for left handed people, since the front brakes are commonly on the left, but it's important to put more pressure sooner on the back brakes.
I feel like you at least have to look into things enough to confirm that the arguments against you aren't bullshit, it's good to admit you're wrong when you're actually wrong but not so good when your debate opponent has just figured out how to make the argument too exhausting to continue. It's also an option to stop responding without conceding anything.
A common example is, someone links to a source that they claim proves all their points. Often the source doesn't say that at all, and they are banking on nobody taking the time to actually read it. If you admit you're wrong in this situation you just propagate misinformation.
Cheating is in the spirit of Monopoly