(I'll note that even states refused to pursue Musk. It appears that you can claim to do something illegal for a few hours on the internet, reap the media rewards, and then edit the post. Political activists, do take note.)
Yes it is illegal for you to do that, as it would be for Trump. But no, Trumps proposed 5k checks to all adult citizens, as I understand it, is legal. I'm pretty disappointed in the other answers. A few relevant points.
Remember the model for sending checks to folks: CARES. Both Biden and Trump have previously done this.
Congress can legally amend and pass laws. Note that the law that makes bribing for votes illegal is not in the constitution, so it requires only the usual legal action to amend it.
I note that the policy Trump proposed isn't discriminatory on who you vote for; your hypothetical does. (I suspect this is irrelevant for the legality, but certainly helps the optics.)
It would if it cited its sources... Though my understanding (if we're even thinking about the same regulations, sigh), is that several things did go down and many more have improved over inflation.
But it opens up whole new interventions! Now we can have social media health campaigns that start with "right now, you can make this healthier. PUSH THE BUTTON!"
It seems one can agree with a person on one issue and not others. Fortunately Lemmy attention isn't very valuable, so we don't have to pretend that upvotes here are deteriorating the fabric of society in quite the way they did on reddit.
Ahhh; I was not reading carefully enough. You are right.
I was, for whatever silly reason, reading "current AI boom" as "current AI methods"; AlphaGo was a neural network model, very close to what we do for LLMs, genAI, etc. My impression was that before NN's, we had a good lead over computers.
Source? My recollection at the time was quite the opposite; that pros consistently found AI were weak in large sections of the end game. The lookup tables required to do what stockfish does for chess are absurdly large, iirc.
180-degree rule
A continuity editorial technique in which sequential shots of two or more actors within a scene are all shot with the camera on one side of the two actors so that a coherent spatial relationship and eyeline match are maintained.
Mindblowing. Even imagining a film that violates this makes me upset.
Gonna block VetOfTheSeas. This is the ~third post of theirs which is clearly false, poorly cited, and yet gets so much attention. I don't need clickbait in my feed, thanks.
Sauce please; I've seen no stats that justify this take. (and if you're being told this reason by your parenting friends, consider that this might be something they feel obligated to tell you)
(I'll note that even states refused to pursue Musk. It appears that you can claim to do something illegal for a few hours on the internet, reap the media rewards, and then edit the post. Political activists, do take note.)
Presidential immunity only extends to official acts see here. That said, its so poorly defined as to be irrelevant at the moment.
Still, I suspect distributing checks from the federal government that was not appropriated by congress would very much fail to qualify.
Yes it is illegal for you to do that, as it would be for Trump. But no, Trumps proposed 5k checks to all adult citizens, as I understand it, is legal. I'm pretty disappointed in the other answers. A few relevant points.
not unfortunate imo! Disenfranchisement should be kept far far away from state power.
I can find no plausible source for the images; I suspect this is AI generated/collected from other places? Source?
That's from 2015, and appears to be a different place no?
also very charming lore.
Could someone kindly explain the origin story on this?
It would if it cited its sources... Though my understanding (if we're even thinking about the same regulations, sigh), is that several things did go down and many more have improved over inflation.
But sure; meme makes me feel good = evidence.
But it opens up whole new interventions! Now we can have social media health campaigns that start with "right now, you can make this healthier. PUSH THE BUTTON!"
This would be compelling with sources; the OP explicitly disputes some of these points afaict.
It seems one can agree with a person on one issue and not others. Fortunately Lemmy attention isn't very valuable, so we don't have to pretend that upvotes here are deteriorating the fabric of society in quite the way they did on reddit.
Ahhh; I was not reading carefully enough. You are right.
I was, for whatever silly reason, reading "current AI boom" as "current AI methods"; AlphaGo was a neural network model, very close to what we do for LLMs, genAI, etc. My impression was that before NN's, we had a good lead over computers.
The clear correct answer is to normalize all hoarding behaviors. We don't need more absurd social rules ty.
Source? My recollection at the time was quite the opposite; that pros consistently found AI were weak in large sections of the end game. The lookup tables required to do what stockfish does for chess are absurdly large, iirc.
Mindblowing. Even imagining a film that violates this makes me upset.
Gonna block VetOfTheSeas. This is the ~third post of theirs which is clearly false, poorly cited, and yet gets so much attention. I don't need clickbait in my feed, thanks.
Sauce please; I've seen no stats that justify this take. (and if you're being told this reason by your parenting friends, consider that this might be something they feel obligated to tell you)
Better since I got a calendar, but I assume the novelty will wear off soon.