Pretty sure the entire reply is supposed to be satirising the dumb ass linked in culture, I very much doubt aynthing in the reply is genuined.
Devial
joined 2 weeks ago
What a dumb ass argument. Accordings to Al Quadas rules of engagement, the twin towers were a legitimate military target.
You don't just get to decide yourself what counts at legitimate target, that's not how any of this works.
Yes you can. And yet I bet you've ordered pre made food before, or food delivery.
You've probably bought plenty of things you could've done yourself for cheaper. You've probably hired handymen to do things like install washing machines, or movers to transport your stuff, or painters or roofers or cleaners. All of those things are cheaper to do yourself. Do you portray people paying for those things as idiots in memes as well ?
Convenience has value, and it's not weird, or inconsistent or stupid for people to be willing to pay a premium on the convenience of someone else doing things, even if you could do them yourself. Especially because a large convenience factor is that if someone else does it, someone else is responsible for fixing it if it goes wrong.
Literally entire rest of developed world: a school shooting happening is national breaking news
USA: No school shooting happening for 24hours is national breaking news
Also, if something isn't working, you can RMA the whole machine. If you build a PC yourself, and it's not working, it then becomes your job to troubleshoot and figure out exactly which component is causing the issue, so you can then RMA just that.
If you gave your AI permission to run console commands without check or verification, then you did in fact give it permission to delete everything.
What the hell even is the point mandating a back up alarm for self driving cars ? Backup alarms literally only exist because visibility to the rear is worse, and to warn pedestrians that a vehicle nearby is moving with very poor to no visibility, but that only applies to human operated vehicles. Autonomous vehicles use 360° sensors, they can "see" just as well in reverse as in forward. Be that good or bad, it's equal in every direction, so mandating an alarm just for reverse seems enormously pointless. Especially since the cars tend to be slower in reverse, so if anything it's less necessary then, vs. when they're moving forward.
Not to necessarily defend the idea in the article, but that comment screams that you just read the headline and not the article.
If you had read the article, you would know that the author doesn't want to get rid of routable addresses, they want to replace the current system of IP address assignments with an automated cryptographic address system, allowing network size to rapidly increase, and self organise without reliance on a central address authority. So your analogy of having no address at all is massive misrepresentation of the authors idea.
Wildly misrepresentating ideas is never good. Even if you dislike it, by wildly misrepresentating the idea, it just discredits your own stance, because it's (seemingly) based on falsehoods.
Pretending like the author just wants to just abolish all types of routing addresses is dishonest.
If you're this bent on defending this mysoginstic and sexist crap, then you're a sexist mysoginst not worth talking too. Enjoy being blocked.
Yes. And the fathers are equally capable of saying no. And the men themselves are equally capable of not being cunts.
There's 3 people involved here, 2 of which are men, and this guy specifically singles out the the one woman, and blames her. That's sexist and mysoginstic.
"When women are bad, it's their fault. When men are bad, it's their mother's fault" is an objectively sexist and shitty stance to have.
If you wanna blame the parents, blame BOTH. Singling out the mother is mysoginstic.
Those men have fathers too, and yet you specifically blame the mothers. That's misogyny.
view more: next ›
I don't care if it slows down the legislative process, I am firmly of the opinion that all politicians should be legally required to take a short exam designed by experts on the topic of any legislation they want to vote on (including things like basic understandings of the concept and potential consequences, both positive and negative, of the legislation), and any politician who fails isn't allowed to vote on that legislation.
Politicians shouldn't be allowed to vote on legislation that they demonstrably do not understand.