Plenty of hate out there of apple alongside the love.

They already had relationships with almost every department in North America so they became an easy choice for bodycams.

The full quote for those that care:

"We don’t need to go into a lot of detail, but you can easily appreciate that sea levels have been much higher than today for much of this period of the Earth's history. Scientists have correlated these fluctuations with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean and atmospheric temperatures, using methods described in the next few pages.

We also must acknowledge here that some people may argue that sea levels have always fluctuated, so why is sea level rise today a big deal? Hopefully, we can shed some light on this question by looking at the changes in sea level through the history of the Earth, while considering the causes for these changes. But, perhaps the simple fact that seas are rising faster than ever before in human history is enough to facilitate action and adaptation. You also may ask, “What can we do about it?” This question will be addressed in later modules."

Going back to where I originally jumped into this conversation, its pretty clear that no level of evidence will change your position. You ask for conclusive evidence where plenty exists, and treat inconclusive evidence as unimpeachable proof of your position. You are backfilling evidence to support your position instead of building a position from the evidence. You will continue to ignore inconvenient scientific evidence, while stretching misunderstood evidence to the breaking point.

In short, there is no point continuing to debate science with someone so utterly set on their position.

I'm done here. You can have the last word if you want to keep digging your hole.

For example: the singular graph that you linked above is from a course that has an entire module on sea level rise, that actually addresses and rebuts the exact arguments that you are making: https://courses.ems.psu.edu/earth107/node/1494.

When the materials you are citing preemptively entire sections debunking your specific arguments and use of the evidence, it is - at best - a sign that you have misinterpreted your own sources by not considering all of the available evidence. It also might mean that your misinterpretation is so common that they can see it coming, leading to the conclusion that you aren't following the evidence, but being led. There are less charitable interpretations, as well, but they aren't in the spirit of the site.

What proof would you accept? What are the goalposts. You have the standard counterpoints for every scientific argument, what is the point of trying to prove anything to someone who so adamantly doesn’t want to believe something? The people that actually work on this stuff are very sure that the greenhouse gas effect has been proven beyond a doubt. Thousands of studies, and billions of dollars have been spent and the huge majority of it points towards human caused climate change being real. People have been giving you the proof, and they have been giving you the solutions, but you demand more?

Fine, flip it around: why does the majority of evidence, expertise and smart money think that it is real? I need better proof of your “pet theory” that this is natural. As you say: “ WE actually believe a pet theory should be PROVEN…”

By definition: if human climate change hasn’t been proven or disproven, then the opposite idea of natural climate change is just as unproven, but has the added problem of being the chosen theory of people who mostly aren’t domain experts, but do believe that they will be made personally worse off in the short term by mitigation efforts.

Many people do not see climate change as certain. Those same people have become convinced that all solutions to climate change involve their lives getting worse. Finally, for those who accept the science of climate change, the “what to do” is not obvious.

In short: not everyone agrees it is a problem. Those that do, don’t agree on the mechanics of the solution.

They are saying that Claude is more of a team player and conformist. It isn’t really much deeper than that.

Every factory appliance will gate the full gas flow behind the activation of a the thermocouple.

When you push and hold a dial or button to get a pilot lit, what you are actually doing is bypassing the thermocouple safety until it gets to temperature. If you release the “hold to light” knob too soon your pilot will go out since the thermocouple needs ~10 seconds to get to temp.

Both Seattle and SF have lower violent crime rates than Salt Lake City.

N.b. property crime is different and is a much less reliable metric. Both cities are ranked higher for property crime, but still below the famously dangerous Salt Lake City.

When our parties got called in, the spotlight would be the warning that the cops were a few minutes away and it was time to run.

Lots of cities have manned aircraft loitering during busy times that will respond to a call before ground units

I’m actually not convinced that ADA “abuse” is a problem. I once had to do an urgent web redesign nbecause someone who was “abusing” the system with dozens of lawsuits. It’s actually dead easy to get out of an ADA lawsuit: you just provide a reasonable accommodation. In our case it forced the corporate decision makers to prioritize making the site accessible. We provided a temporary disability assistance hotline, and got the site compliant. The lawsuit was dropped, now EVERY disabled person is better served because one “abusive” litigant was trolling for settlements. It doesn’t really matter if the plaintiff actually had a disability that made it impossible to use the site, at the end of the day, it forced a change that needed to happen.

If this gentleman used the ADA inappropriately to get paper tickets, it would set up a process and precedent for other people who have disabilities that preclude smartphone use regardless of his own condition. Sounds like a win to me…

You don’t have to go far on this site to find someone that doesn’t like Claude code.

If you want an example of something moronic, look at the ram usage of Claude code. It can use gigabytes of memory to work with a few megabytes of text.

It’s vague enough about what a disability is, that something like “my hand tremor and farsightedness preclude using a touchscreen, I request a reasonable accommodation” is a valid request. If they deny admission and accommodation to somebody incapable of using a smartphone, there is a whole army of lawyers that will gladly take the case on contingency.

As you note, the app is not inherent to seeing a game, or preventing resale. There’s no reason an id and confirmation number can’t be used to get him in.

Where has quality of life dropped so much that people want to die slowly at a young age of a horrible and painful disease instead of getting old?

E.g. You can sign a contract to work for less than minimum wage, it will be entirely thrown out in court.

There’s plenty of math that I couldn’t even begin to solve without a calculator or other tool. Doesn’t mean I’m not solving math problems.

In woodworking, the advice is to let the tool do the work. Does someone using a power saw have less claim to having built something than a handsaw user? Does a CNC user not count as a woodworker because the machine is doing the part that would be hard or impossible for a human?

Oh yeah, the market is also getting intense scrutiny from powerful geopolitical entities that are quite explicit that they don't believe in fair play or consistent, stable rules.

Would you place that bet?

If everything on the board but the ram costs $30, and ram is going from $10/gb to $20/gb, then they have to change the price $50 -> $70 to break even on the 2gb board, and $190 -> $350 for the 16gb board.

In other words, the raspi is now priced like a stick of ram with a bonus computer attached because ram is massively more expensive than the rest of the computer.