you can make it to mean whatever you want it to mean.
the emoji's have their 'official' meaning, but that can change depending on its use (create a movie title only using emoji, etc).
or you could create a secret code book made out of emoji characters and then only other people having the code book will be able to 'read' your text.
it's basically impossible to prove a series of emoji's mean anything.
I don't think that's really true. Try this:
you can make it to mean whatever you want it to mean.
the words have their 'official' meaning, but that can change depending on its use (create a movie title only using words, etc).
or you could create a secret code book made out of words and then only other people having the code book will be able to 'read' your text.
it's basically impossible to prove a series of words mean anything.
Any text can be used in usual ways. Words have multiple meanings, their meanings change over time, there is slang, context, codes, etc.
That doesn't mean that text has no meaning. It just means that someone may have to prove (to a jury, to police, to the public, etc.) that they were using it in unusual ways.
actually tells why the guy is being heard by the Supreme Court.
TLDR? The US postal service are assholes.
Hmm, looks like you are right:
Even early on, the Postal Service expressed interest in Return Mail’s invention, Hungerpiller said. By 2006, the government and Return Mail were talking about licensing options and a formal pilot program. Partnering with the Postal Service, Hungerpiller said, would have “changed my life.” But the Postal Service ultimately developed its own, similar system for processing returned and undeliverable mail, announcing its launch in 2006.
“I was crushed. I got a dagger in my back,” Hungerpiller said.
And his business suffered.
“Bottom line is that we had to lay off employees,” Hungerpiller said, adding that it “suffocated the business.”
The Postal Service soon went further. It tried to get Return Mail’s patent invalidated, but failed.
But we are required to hate patents here, so, uh... I fling clever abuse at you and stuff.
Does it matter what they really believe in their heart-of-hearts?
Someone might not believe that there are literal angels or that when they die they are literally tortured for eternity, but that doesn't really matter if the result is the same, e.g. they support religion based policies and morality stemming for those ideas.
As opposed to belief in a morality hanging from an invisible skyhook, which is your alternative?
"I'm for good things! I don't know why they are good, or how to tell what is good in the first place, but by, er, nothing, I'm for it!"
Belief in an invisible skyhook might be harmless, but you guys support invisible skyhook based policies and morality stemming from those ideas.
Which results in unjust absurdities like... "haha, anything goes sexually now, you hidebound old religious prudes, and... wait, hey you, over there! You just violated that woman with your "male gaze"! #metoo!!!!!!"
You wanted them to come and be your live in whipping boy, and when you bragged to your usual audiences about how badly you were going to whip them, they reconsidered for some mysterious reason.
An alternate possibility is that those with the "fluid" belief subtly alter their teaching and grading activities to produce the results they want to see (or at least results that are closer to what they want to see).
But who knows. It could be that, on average, holding an irrational belief actually produces better classroom results.
In addition to the usual advantages (login with one company, instead of sharing your "secret numbers" with all and sundry), this can only make their processing fees look more competitive.
Tinker recommends a random five-word passphrase, something along the lines of the four-word example popularized by online comic XKCD, "correcthorsebatterystaple." That or whatever maximum length random password via a password management app, with two-factor authentication enabled in either case.
Except that every site has a different maximum number of characters, requires different special characters, some of them don't allow your favorite special characters, etc. So there's no way you can consistently use some complex patterns that you could actually possibly remember.
(Russia disconnects from Internet for short test)
(Rest of world notices 50% drop in spam, bots, DDoS attacks)
(Russia goes to reconnect internet. Rest of world: "You know, maybe you should continue the test another 6 months or maybe indefinitely...?")
I was just going to joke about it the other way... "Russia does what?? How dare you... uh... go off by yourselves and not do anything to us... "
This whole study was propaganda to keep plebs thinking they need to spend every waking hour of the good parts of their life working for someone other than themselves.
Er... what? So if government pays you for doing nothing, you can "work for yourself"?
Yeah, I guess... where does government get the money from then? Doesn't productive activity have to be involved somewhere?
Slashdot Mirror
It's really no weirder than a sport based on obsolete weaponry (used in a way that that nobody gets hurt with).
In today's world, light sabers are not especially more fictional that swords, as far as everyday life goes.
The difference being that the Xerox machine 1. sort of worked, and 2. didn't result in flaming death when it didn't?
... if they are hired on the basis of their ability to memorize stuff that can be looked up in two seconds.
you can make it to mean whatever you want it to mean. the emoji's have their 'official' meaning, but that can change depending on its use (create a movie title only using emoji, etc). or you could create a secret code book made out of emoji characters and then only other people having the code book will be able to 'read' your text.
it's basically impossible to prove a series of emoji's mean anything.
I don't think that's really true. Try this:
you can make it to mean whatever you want it to mean. the words have their 'official' meaning, but that can change depending on its use (create a movie title only using words, etc). or you could create a secret code book made out of words and then only other people having the code book will be able to 'read' your text.
it's basically impossible to prove a series of words mean anything.
Any text can be used in usual ways. Words have multiple meanings, their meanings change over time, there is slang, context, codes, etc.
That doesn't mean that text has no meaning. It just means that someone may have to prove (to a jury, to police, to the public, etc.) that they were using it in unusual ways.
Wow, you actually believe that.
actually tells why the guy is being heard by the Supreme Court.
TLDR? The US postal service are assholes.
Hmm, looks like you are right:
But we are required to hate patents here, so, uh ... I fling clever abuse at you and stuff.
Does it matter what they really believe in their heart-of-hearts?
Someone might not believe that there are literal angels or that when they die they are literally tortured for eternity, but that doesn't really matter if the result is the same, e.g. they support religion based policies and morality stemming for those ideas.
As opposed to belief in a morality hanging from an invisible skyhook, which is your alternative?
"I'm for good things! I don't know why they are good, or how to tell what is good in the first place, but by, er, nothing, I'm for it!"
Belief in an invisible skyhook might be harmless, but you guys support invisible skyhook based policies and morality stemming from those ideas.
Which results in unjust absurdities like ... "haha, anything goes sexually now, you hidebound old religious prudes, and ... wait, hey you, over there! You just violated that woman with your "male gaze"! #metoo!!!!!!"
Well, we all know that this third hypothesis is just complete nonsense. The only valid third hypothesis is, of course, the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
It sounds better than the actually popular choice, the Invisible Skyhook.
The Invisible Skyhook is what morality hangs from for functional atheists.
You know, the "I don't need God to be moral!" guys.
Oh, where does your morality come from?
"From me! I don't need someone to tell me to be good; I do good things because I want to!"
What if you didn't want to?
"Er, well ... "
Anyway, how do you know that what you want to do is good? How do you know what good is?
"Er, well ... shut up flat earther!"
Medical research should be entirely funded by the public, and all patents and treatments that result made available to the public for free.
Obviously, this leads to a better system. Stop trying to defend the status quo.
How is that obvious?
Because everyone flocked to Cuba, Venezuela, and the Soviet Union for their excellent, effective medical treatment?
Not saying it's impossible ... just not exactly obvious.
You wanted them to come and be your live in whipping boy, and when you bragged to your usual audiences about how badly you were going to whip them, they reconsidered for some mysterious reason.
Because I know that what was holding me back from buying a tablet was the massive weight and thickness. Finally!
An alternate possibility is that those with the "fluid" belief subtly alter their teaching and grading activities to produce the results they want to see (or at least results that are closer to what they want to see).
But who knows. It could be that, on average, holding an irrational belief actually produces better classroom results.
a predictive policing software that once cited the controversial, unproven "broken windows" policing theory as a part of its best practices.
The only thing "controversial" about broken window theory was that it worked.
The fact that it worked really bothered a certain class of people (people who wanted crime to be the fault of something other than criminals).
Yet I'm sure Amazon isn't kind to go lightly on their employees who find public transport inadequate to get into work reliably.
What does (or should) federal income tax have to do with public transportation?
Q: So who is paying for their employees' Social Security and SSI disability?
A: We are.
Um ... no.
Makes PayPal look more attractive?
In addition to the usual advantages (login with one company, instead of sharing your "secret numbers" with all and sundry), this can only make their processing fees look more competitive.
Tinker recommends a random five-word passphrase, something along the lines of the four-word example popularized by online comic XKCD, "correcthorsebatterystaple." That or whatever maximum length random password via a password management app, with two-factor authentication enabled in either case.
Except that every site has a different maximum number of characters, requires different special characters, some of them don't allow your favorite special characters, etc. So there's no way you can consistently use some complex patterns that you could actually possibly remember.
"We can't sell this in stores; it's too effective! Only special people like you can get it for 5 installments of $19.95 ... "
Citizens figured out that skyrocketing housing prices resulting in increased homeless, gentrification, and billions in tax payer payola
But, you are describing current New York. No Amazon required.
So bandwidth can magically be created out of nothing. Because legislation!
A gig in every pot!
- An Apple contractor has a building that isn't as spiffy as the main Apple HQ?
- Do Managers tell staff to walk a few blocks because it's in an area where it's difficult for taxis to get to?
- Contractors for Apple don't get treated the same as actual Apple staff?
The article makes it sounds like there's something nefarious or dodgy going on but doesn't provide any real detail.
But ... but ... it's mysterious! Nobody knows where this secret building, "six miles away on Hammerwood Avenue in Sunnyvale," is!!
(Russia disconnects from Internet for short test) (Rest of world notices 50% drop in spam, bots, DDoS attacks) (Russia goes to reconnect internet. Rest of world: "You know, maybe you should continue the test another 6 months or maybe indefinitely...?")
I was just going to joke about it the other way ... "Russia does what?? How dare you ... uh ... go off by yourselves and not do anything to us ... "
How is this different from paying waiters less than minimum wage because they will get tips? The real problem is tipping. Get rid of it.
This whole study was propaganda to keep plebs thinking they need to spend every waking hour of the good parts of their life working for someone other than themselves.
Er ... what? So if government pays you for doing nothing, you can "work for yourself"?
Yeah, I guess ... where does government get the money from then? Doesn't productive activity have to be involved somewhere?
can classify anger from audio data in as little as 1.2 seconds regardless of the speaker's language
It was just a coincidence that the German speakers were angry 100% of the time ...