Crypto can be anonymous, if you use the right cryptocurrency and do things correctly. "Crypto" is a very broad term. Different cryptocurrencies have different functions and purposes.
FaceDeer
joined 2 years ago
Perhaps be more succinct? You're really flooding the zone here.
You have tunnel vision on this issue.
No, I'm staying focused.
Ah, so that's what those two swellings on her chest are.
Electric vehicles are very much not top-heavy. They are typically built with the batteries as a platform along the bottom, lowering their centers of gravity significantly. If anything this has become somewhat of a problem, road barriers aren't designed with such low centers of gravity in mind and testing has shown that some EVs tend to go under barriers when they hit them.
That is absolutely ridiculous. The pressure AI scraping puts on sites vastly outstrips anything people built for, as evidenced by the fact that the systems are going down.
Yes. Which is why I'm suggesting providing an approach that doesn't require scraping the site.
It's ironic that you're railing against capitalism while espousing exactly the sort of scarcity mindset that capitalism is rooted in, whereas I'm the one taking the "information wants to be free" attitude that would normally be associated with anti-capitalist mindsets.
Do you know how excited I was when LLM tech was announced? Do you know how much it sucked to realize, so soon, that companies were going to do their best to use it to optimize profits?
They do that with everything. Does that mean that everything must therefore become some kind of all-or-nothing battleground wherein companies must be thwarted?
It's not as simple as, "Oh, you say that you believe in freedom of information, but curious how you don't want private companies to use it to make money at your expense! Guess you're a hypocrite."
Emphasis added. That part is where you're in error about my view, it's not at my expense. It doesn't harm me any.
Tell me what you actually believe, or stop cycling back to this like it's a damning rebuttal.
I have been.
I'm not "taking their side." I'm just not actively trying to harm them. The world is not a zero-sum game, it's often possible for everyone to get what they want without harming each other in the process.
Yes, I know the companies are not the same as normal patrons. I don't care that they're not the same as normal patrons. All I'm concerned about is that the normal patrons get access to the data. The solution I proposed does that.
The problem, as I see it, is that's not all that you are concerned about. Your goal also includes a second aspect; you want those companies to not have access to that data. So my proposal is not acceptable because it doesn't thwart those companies.
I'm not drawing an equivalence between companies and individual patrons, I'm just saying my goals don't include actively obstructing those companies. If they can get what they want without interfering with what the normal patrons want, why is that a bad thing?
I feel like the Trump administration has moved beyond scandals at this point. Scandals are just the ocean in which it swims. The emoluments clause is dead, buried, and completely forgotten. Other parts of the constitution are still hanging around in tatters, people are noticing some of that, but run of the mill scandal is not relevant.
Is it cheating to say AI and humanoid robots?
Anti-aging tech, if so.