Apparently he considers that play for citizens does not implies complacency with the government, which makes an interesting point, especially if many countries have governments that you condem with some citizens that indeed complain about their governments in there and that may be is your target audience and you want to support... regarding your tolerance threshold vs profesionalism concept it would may be hard to find work at all otherwise. But for sure at a certain point of government abuses, unless you declare openly your support or not, it looks like you tacitly approve it, and the apparent message rises, and then is practically like directly asking the actor about his personal opinion and not wanting to answer, which looks like an answer itself. He may have just met the threshold with the situation, may even be contractually lured into it in the first place and found a "way out"...
Those airports should not provide flight spots they cannot attend instead of asking the whole continent to renounce to security, I am OK to subsidise the transition of new legislations but prioritising profit over security sounds BS to me...
Information and entropy changed, if you melt ice figures to refrozen the water again you go the other way around, but you have introduced/extracted things during the process, so I stop seeing the philosophical wonder.
To begin with "how many things are in the room?" an in-depth list should include all the energy in all their forms, including matter and organisation, and when you perform processes that change this you logically vary the full list of things in the room.
Infrastructures are expensive. Startegic ones must be owend and maintained by all the people for the people, regardless individual usage, since being strategic have impact in every individual.
The theoretical minimum would be sharing any instant of their lives, during which they could not sustain an unfettered access to anything, not like I would consider it a decent minimum in any case (I was revolving around the "unfettered access" concept of the previous comment), but I cannot imagine how it would exists any threshold of supervision above which you can exclude any unfettered access at any given moment of their existence, risk of harmful exposition never drops to zero, so argue an Orwellian measure for the indiscriminate shake of their safety has no sense to me...
For me it is not only that they used AI for the writing, is that they did not care to review/recheck/polishing it before releasing it to the public, so my effort in consuming it will be reciprocal
Indeed, unfettered in a literal sense cannot happen even with the most minimum supervision, but regardless of the threshold in parenting (I am not going to pardon parents responsibility on this, but good luck asserting 100% supervision), circumventions will always take place, so with more reason it cannot be used the "kids safety" argument to bring Orwellian levels to everybody's lifes
Apparently he considers that play for citizens does not implies complacency with the government, which makes an interesting point, especially if many countries have governments that you condem with some citizens that indeed complain about their governments in there and that may be is your target audience and you want to support... regarding your tolerance threshold vs profesionalism concept it would may be hard to find work at all otherwise. But for sure at a certain point of government abuses, unless you declare openly your support or not, it looks like you tacitly approve it, and the apparent message rises, and then is practically like directly asking the actor about his personal opinion and not wanting to answer, which looks like an answer itself. He may have just met the threshold with the situation, may even be contractually lured into it in the first place and found a "way out"...
He claimed ownership of Venezuelan oil, Greenland, Canada and whatever he whims, so...
It took them time...
Trump demands ninhi ninhinhi ninhinhi or ninhi ninhi
I wish Trump decides to rename something in Europe and Google complies so another jump in degooglelization takes place there..
Stupid people see authorised their stupidity so they become less shy about their stupidity
Those airports should not provide flight spots they cannot attend instead of asking the whole continent to renounce to security, I am OK to subsidise the transition of new legislations but prioritising profit over security sounds BS to me...
Don't tell me, mine owners?
This looks like part of the Monthy Python's "Silly Walk" sketch...
Those are weird priorities...
I am pretty sure that he is just favouring friends handling their competition...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live
They Live, a John Carpenter classic
Information and entropy changed, if you melt ice figures to refrozen the water again you go the other way around, but you have introduced/extracted things during the process, so I stop seeing the philosophical wonder.
To begin with "how many things are in the room?" an in-depth list should include all the energy in all their forms, including matter and organisation, and when you perform processes that change this you logically vary the full list of things in the room.
Indeed
Infrastructures are expensive. Startegic ones must be owend and maintained by all the people for the people, regardless individual usage, since being strategic have impact in every individual.
Except in Italy, nearly the totality of the coast is privately handled and you must pay to access it...
The theoretical minimum would be sharing any instant of their lives, during which they could not sustain an unfettered access to anything, not like I would consider it a decent minimum in any case (I was revolving around the "unfettered access" concept of the previous comment), but I cannot imagine how it would exists any threshold of supervision above which you can exclude any unfettered access at any given moment of their existence, risk of harmful exposition never drops to zero, so argue an Orwellian measure for the indiscriminate shake of their safety has no sense to me...
For me it is not only that they used AI for the writing, is that they did not care to review/recheck/polishing it before releasing it to the public, so my effort in consuming it will be reciprocal
Indeed, unfettered in a literal sense cannot happen even with the most minimum supervision, but regardless of the threshold in parenting (I am not going to pardon parents responsibility on this, but good luck asserting 100% supervision), circumventions will always take place, so with more reason it cannot be used the "kids safety" argument to bring Orwellian levels to everybody's lifes