Their true motives are far from protecting kids. Otherwise, they would install security cameras inside all corners in all churches in the continent, and, more importantly, enforce bodycam on pastors 24/7.
> Because that's how you protect people privacy, right???
I'm not promoting such practices. In fact, I was just trying to use the legislators logic: if they are truthful about their "protecting children" slogan, let them start their policing where the predators are most likely to be found instead of targeting the entire population.
> their policing where the predators are most likely to be found
well, the predators are more likely found in schools, which are way more numerous than (actively used) churches (and temples and synagogues and mosques...)
Well the standard model doesn’t predict them, and apart from one detection that has never been reproduced we’ve never detected any pre-existing ones or any created in a particle accelerator.
We have detected the effects of gravitons (...if it's gravitons and not something else) at macroscopic scales, however we have not done the same with monopoles. So that comparison is not apples to apples.
I have not heard anything about the SM predicting them being impossible, but I assume it does given that I haven't heard anything about the subject. Source: I have a master's in physics and a friend of mine did his bachelor's thesis in monopoles in classical electrodynamics (albeit modified) and his master's in quantum ones, so he would've told me if he knew.
However, if any GUT theory we have come up with is correct (because a few exist), then that does imply the existence of monopoles.
Gravitons are a universal prediction, so one doesn't get any credit for predicting them. _Any_ low-energy quantum field theory approximation to gravity will have them, so long as it looks like GR at large enough distance scales.
Too bad it rejects non-Latin words, as if the definition of "text" is a sequence of alphabetical letters originated from Latin.
I thought that we've reached the time to embrace all cultures in the world, but this retrogressive engine proves that most modern tech designers are myopic about other civilizations in the globe.
Understand that this is something I built for myself, by myself, so it focuses on languages I understand. It hosted on a single consumer grade computer in my living room. I built it out of pocket and anyone is free to use it. Does this make me a villain?
If I can do this, what's preventing some guy in Japan or India or Peru from doing the same, of course focusing on their languages?
Maybe a better suited choice for errors than an insulting message: when I provided a query in my native language it regurgitated the error "needs to be a word" instead of more acceptable "not a supported language".
When you claim that a word in some other culture is not "a word", just because it's not recognized by your machine, that's demeaning to say the least.
Again it's a one man hobby project, I don't have a team of people to go through every formulation and every error message to ensure nobody can read them in a way that offends them. It's just me, writing code on an unfinished project that HN discovered.
In this case, the code doesn't match the word regexp, like it may be a @TwitterHandle or a "comp.lang.c" with periods in it, or an unsupported Unicode range. It doesn't know why it is not matching, just that it doesn't.
I must congratulate you on this achievement. That's certainly a useful take on search.
Nonetheless, even when coding, one should also consider thoroughly the UX and how it would be addressing the others.
Saying "unsupported word" is much more sympathetic than "needs to be a word" (where you define what a "word" is, and the general user is unaware of such definition).
No, it just proves that a one-man hobby project with finite resources found it reasonable to restrict the scope.
Maybe when they find out they're an immortal billionaire they can build all the additional things you've entitled yourself to expect from the freely shared work of others.
What is your definition of "Legitimate"? Is it just what the US lawmakers define as lawful? In such case, we've witnessed many instances where the US imposes sanctions on various entities with no relevant excuses but to oppress those who disagree with it. One recent example that I can think of is when the US imposed sanctions on members of the ICC [1].
“Legitimate” in this case refers to any miner who is mining honestly and is simply motivated by profits from the block reward and fees. If we ignore potential price increases and inefficiencies, an ideal mining market should see block production costs increase until the profit margin for such miners is close to zero. But miners with “ulterior motives” can extract more benefit from mining, and so can mine profitably even when production costs are very close to rewards. This means in theory such parties are likely to dominate the mining network.
“Ulterior motives” includes a lot of things. It definitely includes money laundering (see Iran and China) but it also includes people who mine so they can conduct 51% and MEV attacks on the network. On the positive side it may include pseudo-altruistic types such as major currency holders, who are willing to mine at a loss in order to support the currency’s value. The thing all of these parties have in common is that none of them are incentivized to mine honestly solely because of the intrinsic profits involved in mining: your hope is that their ulterior motive is compatible with honest behavior. When that isn’t born out, your network runs into trouble.
* Obviously in the real world there are tons of capital expenses and prices fluctuate wildly, so this model is loaded with inefficiency that can allow some folks to make money on mining as a business in and of itself. But PoS systems will have fewer such inefficiencies.
I'm not trying to make a moral point here. For the purposes of trying to predict the outcome of the interaction of governments and bitcoin, what governments consider legitimate is an appropriate thing to consider. That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with individual US laws.
[Edit: Actually matthewdgreen is right in a sibling comment, that the argument can be made without considering laws as such]
You mean like building them homes, letting them get an education, integrated into your community or perpetuating their lives in slums the way to give them a normal lives?
It's easy to just ignore the problem instead of actually coming up with a plan the help them regardless of what you think is the righteous thing.
I'm all for them to live a normal lives but maybe the Arbs nations are also to blame? Shouldn't they actually do something instead of putting all the blame on Israel.
This region can barely sustain it's current population letting a few million souls isn't practical in any regard.
You can't put 100% of the blame and responsibility on one side, even if it's the strong one.
The Arab nations attacked and kept attacking Israel, if they wouldn't attack in 47 the partition plan would hold if they wouldn't work towards war in 67 there would be no need to conquer Gaza, west bank, Golan heights etc. and there would be no refuges. Keep in mind the 20% of the population of Israel are Arabs.
When Egypt was in control of Gaza were the Gazans citizens? No
When Jorden ruled east Jerusalem and the west bank were they citizens? No
Did they mistreat them? Yes
Did they try and hold the peace and avoid conflict? No
Was there an International cry for Palestinians self determination? No
Did they encourage violence and throwing Jews to the sea? Yes
I'm not saying Israel is an angel who did nothing wrong, horrible things did happen, and could have done things better but this should not all be on Israel shoulders.
The bottom line is that the world doesn't really want to get involved, they don't want to solve the conflict, the Arabs don't want to look weak and ashamed and the Israeli side doesn't want to make hard concessions.
Your comment would be credible if the Israeli regime juridical system is unbiased. However, their rulings are oppressing the minorities. Indeed, the unrest that we are witnessing in Arab communities inside only highlights the feeling of injustice by the indigenous population.
Let us also remember that the ruling regime is accused of committing the crime of Apartheid. [1]
These are facts not opinions. Yes you may think the Israeli juridical system is biased and you maybe right but that doesn't make what he wrote any less true.
If you think the court made a wrong decision I'd love to hear your legal remarks where the court should have sided with the current residents.
Nobody was complaining in 1982 when that very same court system ruled that they had the right to live on the property as tenants. The people who are being evicted did not dispute the court's ruling at the time and agreed, in writing, to the terms of that ruling. Now, after 40 years of not paying the rent they agreed to pay, they are facing eviction -- and suddenly that same court system is too biased to give a fair ruling? Seriously?
Of course it's biased, you needed to dig back to one debatable instance in 1982, but you couldn't find any recent one since all the recent rulings enforce the hypothesis about bias. The system shifts in time, and you can't just pretend it's the same since 4 decades. But I'm probably arguing with JIDF, which makes all exchange futile since you are here to blindly defend the colonizer actions instead of listening.
> For the lazy people who would rather listen to a random stranger on the Internet:
The not so much "random stranger" above is clearly taking the Netanyahu regime side and discrediting any humanity from the reaction that the other side is taking.
