Schadrach

Nothing in the law requires some kind of online server. Only a local API, which a local library that can be linked is. And it only requires age to bebe described in four brackets, hence just storing a value 0-3. Didn’t see anything obvious as to why this wouldn’t actually meet the requirements, while being as dumb and pointless as possible.

Am I missing something or would the following not meet the requirements?

Add a module that does the following:

On first account login to an interactive interface, ask for an age category (<=13, 15-15,16-17,18+). So a value between 0 and 3. Store that somewhere alongside user-level application settings. Include a library for applications to link against. Library contains one function, that function just returns whatever value was stored before.

I think that meets their bare minimum while also demonstrating just how dumb this is.

Really? I would have figured the Rapture route would be workable with the right engineering. Especially given the massive amounts of borderline free cooling and non-existing regulatory environment if outside territorial waters.

Adding one more person adds more than one comparison. Assuming birthdays are evenly distributed (they aren’t), 2 people have a 1/365.25 chance of sharing a birthday. But adding a third person adds 2 more chances. Adding that 23rd person adds 22 more chances than adding the 22nd person. 1+2+3…+22=253 separate checks, of which only one needs to match.

in Canada, basically if it’s not winter (hard to drive because of conditions and almost complete lack of visibility of the road and signs), it’s road construction time…

You’ll note that Waymo is really only launched in places that tend to have mostly pleasant weather most of the time, because the tech is relatively new (but probably already much better than human drivers most of the time - humans are broadly awful at driving so that doesn’t take much) and they don’t want to try it against the much more difficult conditions in many places yet.

I mean yeah, it’s almost certainly unconstitutional under 24A. But theat requires a SCOTUs who cares about the law and the constitution instead of putting Heritage first, Trump second and all that other stuff a distant third.

Again, read SAVE instead of making assumptions based on practices of other agencies that are tangentially related.

SAVE calls for “documentary proof of United States citizenship”, which it defines in the act itself. A RealID that also verifies citizenship counts (normal RealID doesn’t, and only 5 states that offer an “enhanced driver’s license” do), so does a passport, a military ID combined with a record of service indicating you were born in the US, a federal, state, or tribal photo ID showing your place of birth was in the US or a federal, state or tribal photo ID combined with a birth or naturalization record.

Most people will fall in that last category. And most valid birth records explicitly require the record be of the same name. The big question I’m not sure of is if in all the small changes amended to the law by SAVE if documentary proof of United States Citizenship is required to vote or merely to register.

No reason to use the I9 instead of the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text

That’s the version that passed the house. And the relevant bit is near the top, section 2(b).

What does the IRS have to do with anything? Read the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text

Section 2(b) is the relevant bit regarding what counts as documentary proof of US citizenship.

Does SAVE require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, or just to register? As I understand it, documentary proof of citizenship is the specific requirement that’s hard for anyone who has had a change of name to meet short of a passport or an EDL in the 5 states that offer one.

There are models with open weights, and you can run those locally on your GPU. It can be a bit slower depending on model and GPU. For example, GLM has an open version, both full and pruned, but it’s not the newest version. A bunch of image generation models have local versions too.

The whole premise of deep think and similar in other models is to come up with an answer, then ask itself if the answer is right and how it could be wrong until the result is stable.

The seahorse emoji question is one that trips up a lot of models (it’s a Mandela effect thing where it doesn’t exist but lots of people remember it and as a consequence are firm that it’s real), I asked GLM 4.7 about it with deep think on and it wrote about two dozen paragraphs trying to think of everywhere a seahorse emoji could be hiding, if it was in a previous or upcoming standard, if maybe there was another emoji that might be mistaken for a seahorse, etc, etc. It eventually decided that it didn’t exist, double checked that it wasn’t missing anything, and gave an answer.

It was startlingly like stream of consciousness of someone experiencing the Mandela effect trying desperately to find evidence they were right, except it eventually gave up and realized the truth.

EDIT: Spelling. Really need to proofread when I do this kind of thing on my phone.

He’s trying to take them down from the inside.

From the inside of an underaged girl, maybe.

Does that make blowing bubba collecting evidence?

Everyone around you has a phone with a camera. Businesses and the government have additional cameras looking all over. The phone camera being less obvious and handsfree seems like an arbitrary choice of where to draw the line

OK, and? He can drop that suit at any time and it will stop there, but such a lawsuit is a useful tactic. Specifically, it’s a MAD tactic, because he knows he is also implicated (I don’t think anyone genuinely believes he’s totally clean on the Epstein stuff) and the GOP broadly and Trump in particular want to go after the Clintons in particular.

If he was genuinely about transparency, why do you think he fought and delayed on the subpoena until Congress moved to find in in contempt of Congress? The purpose of such a lawsuit is to create a threat against them to protect himself by threat of mutual destruction. Same as pushing for any deposition from the subpoena being totally public - also about mutually assured destruction. The goal is to threaten that if the Clintons are gone after in a serious way, he’ll take them with him.

It’s a political maneuver. He’s betting on there being less bad about him than about GOP and that they’ll refuse anything that allows stuff to potentially be public outside their direct control and won’t push too hard on him as a consequence.

Literally the use of pizza imagery as code for pedo stuff was one of the central claims of the qanon pizza gate conspiracy. Seems like other than it not being in the basement of a pizza place with no basement they had most of it right, strangely enough.