KairuByte

It’s unprofitable to pay for workers visits to the hospital. Even if you have insurance, which goes up with repeated “accidents”, you’re paying in lost productivity.

“I only reluctantly support the guy saying he will be a dictator, therefore don’t lump me in with the people who happily support him.” 🤦🏻‍♂️

These “ai says” articles are all fluff. You can get an LLM to say just about anything you want. This is akin to “my child says we should eat the neighbor.”

Seed boxes are inherently handling replaceable data, bar unpopular torrents. This is such a silly comparison.

You almost got it, gotta remove the space between that last period and the following tilde. Whitespace kills markdown in most cases.

Strikethrough is just surrounding your text with ~~ on either side, touching non-whitespace characters.

~~Like this.~~ looks Like this.

In a perfect world, sure. But in reality, the majority of devices do not have optical zoom. Most recordings of police are done on cellphones, and usually older And/or lower end models that aren’t using optical zoom.

“This recording is inadmissible, it was zoomed in so much it’s impossible to tell with any certainty what is going on.”

Digital zoom is literally just cropping out the rest of the video. You’re not actually zooming in, you’re just losing context.

You can agree with something someone says, and disagree with something else they say or do.

We’ll still be hulks, it just won’t be that incredible.

Oddly I can see neither this reply, nor my original comment, but can reply from my inbox within Voyager.

Relevant: https://youtu.be/ozezG1zpxXQ

You can have the most secure and secret OS in existence, and you’re failing miserably the moment it has unfettered access to the internet.

On the flip side, literally any OS can be secure if it’s airgapped in a sealed room.

There’s a happy medium in there, and that’s where most governments want to be.

Ah okay, just found it curious. Thanks for lettin me know!

You might want to re-read what my comment said. I explicitly stated “for example.” In fact, you yourself acknowledged that it was an example. If you can’t understand how that isn’t a strawman argument, I’m not really certain how this discussion can continue. Do you not know what an example is? Because at this point I’m wondering if you think it means “I bet you think this,” as it’s the only explanation that makes sense.

If you’re not willing to answer the question, I can only assume it’s because you’re understanding the parallel I’m drawing. Seeing as how you seemingly understand, I think we can safely end this… I suppose we can call it a discussion if you want.

Good day.

Apart from the fact that I was using it as an example, and explicitly stated such, sure I guess? Of course you also need to ignore the fact that I never claimed you said that, or were arguing that statement.

So, y’know, not at all a strawman. But pop off I suppose.

You going to address my question, or just (ironically) use a strawman argument with some ad hominids sprinkled on top?

Somewhat niche a use case, but *extremely interesting. Hopefully it can be adapted for other conditions!

I don’t think you understand what a strawman is.

Though you spark a good debate. Should the votes in elections be transparent for accountability sake?

A bot edited its comment? O.o

Ngl this sounds like everyone ever who has defended a terrible thing and instead blamed an individual.

For example: “Guns aren’t the problem, the people with the guns that are the problem.”