And the subsidiary has explicit permission to continue operating if the parent company divests.
And the subsidiary has explicit permission to continue operating if the parent company divests.
Or they just route the sale of traffic through a domestic data broker and buy “analysis” on the Chinese side of the legal fence. There are so many badly policed and underregulated aspects of the data business that this shit never amounts to more than publicity stunts.
That is literally what Facebook was fined for, BEFORE the new laws were put in place. Cambridge Analytica did what you just described.
Well, actually:
When Online Content Disappears
“38% of webpages that existed in 2013 are no longer accessible a decade later”
#3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read. All three are required conditions.
The parent company don’t have judicial protections. They’re based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn’t being punished, they’re explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.
I hate Reagan with all my heart, but in his defence there is little to no evidence Reagan knew what his subordinates were doing with Iran Contra. Those subordinates did face judgement and were not pardoned until late 2007.
A US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:
And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.
Also, the tiktok ban was passed alongside a bill outlawing sale of data to China, Iran, Russia, etc. So if FB is still selling to China it is also illegal.
Technically, the second partof that bill bans sending user data to China for all companies, so it’s foreseeabke that they get fined into the dirt if nothing else.
I hope the Facebook multi-billion dollar fines act as precedent.
EDIT: Oops wrong game lol mb
All 258 sounds are archived if you think you could recognize it. LINK
Technically this guy was in the area for over 12 hours before being thwarted.
I havent really been following so I assumed Trump was fired at until I saw this headline.
I’ll have to try kagi some time
EDIT: subscription based… Idk, definite maybe on that one.
Shooter 1: Republican
Shooter 2: Former MAGA
Hmmm
These democrats sure are playing long cons…
Tolerance ends with intolerance. Being nice and civil leads to things like the storming of the US Capital. If US Republicans, for example, felt no resistance then they would organize a crusade into Springfield Ohio.
It is because we live in a world of controversy and civil unrest that racists cannot simply commit massacres and lynchings like in the old days.
We have to show fangs, not bellies, to aggressive animals.
My buddy did his first dissertation in the UK and they didn’t give him any format suggestions or guidelines, but they still criticized him for choosing APA IMRaD.
It’s something being shoved down our throats every second of every day and I’ve seen enough to know I don’t like it. Curiosity was satiated a long ass time ago. It’s just a bigger power draw than Cryptocurrency but somehow magically even less value.
From all the studies available, LLMs increased the rate at which low skilled workers complete tasks. They also lower accuracy, so expect some of the tasks to be done incorrectly.
If your metric for “improves” is being a better low skill drone forever then yes I’m sure it’s helping you. Here is a novel idea, maybe learn the language from a reliable source instead of taking the word of a bullshit generator at face value?
But answer the question maybe
Also, my “hate” was very clearly directed towards LLMs and not a “person”.
Okay but what problem does that solve? Is the solution setting up our own spambots to fill forums with arguments counter to their bullshit spambots? I don’t see how an LLM improves literally anything ever in any circumstance.
You give them far too much credit to assume this specific company will ever achieve anything even close to AGI.
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose’s friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.
The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.