Bars manage a middle ground; you have to surrender your CC before they serve you, and there is no way they're going to give it back without attempting to charge it. And it is a crime to hand them a card you know they can't charge.
Especially a Salon. That is insane... they live off of cash tips. Read: avoid taxes.
One is explicitly supposed to report tips in tax returns. What you are suggesting is that such businesses engage in systematic and wilful tax fraud - a very serious charge, which you are putting forth without any supporting evidence.
No, the claim was that the businesses tend to manage themselves in a way that minimizes their involvement in their employees' tax withholdings.
Are you sure you can read English?!
Systemic and willful tax fraud is why the business owner wants customers to pay in cash, not why it is necessary to accept cash in order to retain employees.
Life does not restrict naughtiness to a single concurrent instance.
Also remember, in the phrase "cash in king," they're talking about the business owner's cash, not yours. And they actually only mean liquid assets, eg, "cash flow."
With credit cards they have an easier time managing their cash flow, because they can get accurate information online from their bank. With cash, it isn't so easy; you have some pieces of paper or an electronic record that was created by somebody also handling the cash, and then a pile of cash somewhere, and eventually an aggregate bank deposit. It costs more to track the cash closely than you lose in payment fees from CCs.
If you want to use cash, the obvious answer is to patronize small businesses instead of chains, because they don't incur the same expenses to keep track of their cash. Plus, they might prefer cash for tax reasons.
Computers don't care who typed code it, it runs the same regardless of what letters are next to a person's name, or how long their letters have been carefully aged.
No need for scare-quotes around the word fixed, it is a bug bounty not some sort of contract to attempt to fix bugs. If they didn't fix it, they won't get paid.
I find that running an FTP server on a tablet or phone is often the easiest way to get files onto a networked computer that isn't set up to share files over the network.
For example, some sort of machine like a laser printer or CNC that has a windows computer as the interface. Maybe it only has a USB port to accept files, but it is connected to the shop's wifi. No problem, I can just run cmd and then ftp from the command line!
It isn't dying, because the commands already exist and don't require any new integrations to be useful. And yet, they're still used by a lot of legacy scripts, installers and things like that, so they're not likely to be actually removed.
It just spends a lot of quiet time to itself these days.
Having a license doesn't mean that if you upload it and lie about where you got it, that you didn't harm the creator. Especially if you didn't give them any "consideration" (eg money) that would be consistent with selling that right. If it is a shrink-wrap license, and they present the service in a way that they know that video creators are trying to make money from the videos they upload, then they don't get very many rights from a shrink-wrap license.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure if she has a lawyer she can get paid here.
Just because they can use it, doesn't mean they can use it in any way, or lie about it in a way that harms the creator.
The root of your claim is about the publishing of economic data. Right here you'd doing a bait-and-switch and trying to imply that if you didn't publish financial numbers about the harms, then that somehow proves that the rule made the air "dirtier" and the emissions "more dangerous."
But they weren't found to have gotten anything about the public health aspects wrong.
You're just making up lies because it was Obama, and there is "something" about him that causes you to lie when you see his name. I wonder what it could be?
Why the bait-and-switch? Earlier you were claiming it was scientific data that you're upset they didn't publish, now you're talking about non-scientific data.
It seems what actually happened is that they used the scientific data directly, without saying enough words about the politics that disguises itself as economics.
It seems you have a special "thing" for Obama. Gosh, I wonder why. (Looks out window at modern world) Oh, yeah, that's why. You're one of Them.
When you go "off the top of your head" you're just spewing crap you heard on AM radio.
John Kerry was negotiating on behalf of the United States Government. It is literally impossible for that to be a Logan Act violation.
The Clinton Foundation is a legit, grade A charity, and it is legal for charities to accept donations from Russia or from Russian people. In fact, you'll even find Russian products for sale in the supermarket. Odd that you think any sort of relationship with Russians is illegal. And even weirder that you would find a Logan Act violation by individuals on account of activities of a charity that is named after them. That's Pizzagate level bullshit you're obviously dumping into your brain, and then you recite the shit without even looking it up. Furthermore, they accepted funds to do charitable work; that isn't implicated by the Logan Act in any way. And the activities of a registered non-profit charity already do not include political negotiations. So, really, really, exceptionally stupid claim. Even as far as idiot neo-nazi conspiracy theories go, you're falling off the stupid end of the wagon.
Representative Pelosi is an elected member of the US Government, and China is one of the US's biggest trade partners. It is literally impossible for her to violate the Logan Act. She is an elected Representative.
The Logan Act came about because, in 1798, President Adams sent 3 trade representatives to France, and Dr. Logan, a professor and pacifist, engaged in private negotiations that interfered with the US position. That's what it bans; negotiating with a foreign power in contradiction to the US position. US government employees are not even implicated in the law. And certainly elected members of the US Government can't lack authorization to take their own position. If that is what you carry on the top of your head, buy a hat, and remember to look shit up don't just trust your AM radio.
That was an existing game company that knew what they were doing and they spent the money to hype it.
When they talk about software on cable newsvertainment channels, they were paid to. Twitter was totally mainstream before most people had ever heard of it; Ruby programmers knew about it before the hype train launched, but when they first started talking about it on the "news" it was a small site with just a few users. And they hadn't even turned it into "microblogging" yet, it was still asking the question, "What are you doing right now?" It was after they were already hyping it (hyping as a verb means to pay to have it talked about on newsvertainment) that they figured out what value the users found in it.
Angry Birds was being hyped for something like 2 years. You don't do that for $1m.
I listen to the song at least once a month. For the past 20 years. And I doubt I've been to the website other than the first time I heard about it here on slashdot.
I can totally see losing $50k on it, because it has a cult following and it couldM/em> have value. But $1m?!
I'd even say $10m would make more sense than $1m. You're not going to start a fad with $1m, and you don't need $1m to shoestring it. It should have been either highly funded, or minimally funded. The big mistake here is going medium.
Greek isn't really that difficult to translate into English.
For historical reasons.;)
The "million" Persian cavalry was cited in the story as a rumor. Other military numbers are given by visual estimate, and there are detailed descriptions of the military engagements and who was where, who fought who, etc. The Ten Thousand is how many professional soldiers the Greeks had with them; that's just the people with full heavy armor. Each of them had a bunch of helpers, and there were lots of light units with them. They had numerous generals, and while Xenophon started as just a mercenary, he quickly rose during the campaign to be a general.
They describe the numbers because it was important to the story, if you assume that the intended audience would have their own military experience from that era. And for the same reason, the observations of numbers in the story are likely to be fairly accurate. I'm not sure why you presume that any sort of literary detail that you're not personally interested in must be "masturbary."[sic] And honestly, commentary on an English translation by a person who doesn't know the word masturbatory is a bit of an exercise in, well, you get it.
But absolutely, a story about an army that had to travel that far to get home, fighting through most of the lands as they went, is going to have a certain "mad man dragging his jock strap" character to it; because that is what it is like to engage in that sort of activity. If you're not ready to be mad, you're not ready to get home, you might as well dig your grave where you stand.
I don't think the Greeks cared at all about Arabic society, and they certainly didn't go that far south. They marched from Ionia through Turkey to what is now Syria, and crossed into Persia from the west. A route that was not considered wise at the time, but they were imposing enough to manage it. They fought a major battle with the Persians near what is now Baghdad. They were victorious in their own engagements, but the Persian prince they were fighting for died in the battle, and so their side had lost, and the story is their journey home. Most of the story takes places in Karduchia and Western Armenia.
I'm sure there were a few Arabs in the Persian army somewhere, but it wasn't part of the story. It is only in the last few hundred years that the Arab population have been that far north to border the Kurds.
Location, Location, Location is not the top three rules for retail.
It is a book. About fast food restaurants. It is a good book with lessons for all types of retailers, but it is more of a biography of a businessperson than it is some sort of textbook. As penance for referencing it, you should be expected to go and actually read the whole thing, cover to cover! Repent!
Sears was a destination store; people would be at home, decide they wanted to go shopping, and drive to Sears. Location is a bigger concern for the smaller stores; they wanted to be near a Sears! And now, the other large stores with similar products to Sears are out at the edge of town. Not in any sort of premium locations. Location for them might just mean it is easy enough for the trucks to make deliveries, not having a high traffic rate like a fast food restaurant needs.
That book will teach you nothing about selecting locations for big-box retail, because it is explaining how this business guy ignored the traditional rules of selecting locations, and replaced them with a new set of concepts more appropriate to convenience shoppers. And in this new system, the location of the location becomes the primary thing; whereas for non-convenience stores, things like cost are really important, and having a super-premium location isn't.
I grew up with Sears and I wanted to shop there, but the last 20 years or so the customer service has just sucked. I don't really mind that the workers are clueless if I ask a question; I should have just read the manual anyways. But at Sears, there are so few workers that it is hard to get any help, and when you ask a question they're a bunch of jerks. At Home Depot or Lowes, they have lots of employees to ask questions, and they actually know the answer. The danger is that they might follow you around like a puppy trying to make sure you found what you needed. That's a lesser evil compared to clueless jerks, for sure.
I was still reminiscing about the Sears I grew up shopping at when I was shopping somewhere else. No surprise they're shutting down.
The website stuff shows why they couldn't succeed at switching to online, either. They did both poorly, instead of doing one well. If they had done either one well, they could have survived as a smaller version of that. But they can't survive by sucking at both.
Right, 2500 years ago when the Ten Thousand invaded Karduchia (in order to pass through it and escape the Persian Empire) they were victorious in their strategic retreat. They fought a running battle from the southern border, in what is now Iraq, all the way north into Western Armenia, where the people were much more accepting of strangers. (!)(lol)
The Karduchians had previously been famously invaded by 1 million Persian cavalry, none (!) of whom made it home. If you look at the topo map, you can see a really really long valley, not a river valley but rather the remnants of an ancient mountain chain, with steep sides and no exits but at the ends, something like 50 or 100 miles apart. They blocked the end with their army, and the whole length of the trench was lined with villagers throwing down stones.
The Greeks took a different route; they captured a guide, and went right through the heart of the land, down the twisting mountain roads that the Karduchians used for local traffic. Without a guide, you just go in circles, but with a guide, (and heavy infantry) they were able to fight from ridge to ridge in two teams.
And later Xenophon wrote that history down. So it is too late to erase Karduchia merely by winning some war, because victors of yesteryear already wrote it down. And being that they had no intention of war, the Greeks merely wanted to pass through the land, they give an honest and direct account. The Kurds refused to even negotiate for passage at all, but they did negotiate and respect temporary cease-fires for both sides to recover and bury the dead.
Just as you can find Palistine under the similar name Philistine on biblical-era maps, you can find Karduchia too.
If you read Anabasis by Xenophon, he describes in detail their northwest border, which is currently in land claimed by Turkey. If you use a topo map, you can see that their traditional land includes most of a mountain range that goes from just north and east of the Euphrates river in modern Iraq, north to their border with the land that was traditionally Western Armenia, east in Iran, and south nearly to the Persian Gulf.
The difference is, when you receive knowledge from other humans, you're not receiving an actual copy. You're receiving something new that purports to be a copy. And it is known to be a crappy system for collecting data, because it is full of garbage and doesn't have any effective system for filtering the noise.
This is why critical thinking is a more valuable learning skill than memorization.
Computers are excellent at memorization. So when an engineer builds an AI library that is actually an expert system for recombining certain classes of algorithms, the programmer using that library can simply receive knowledge about the API through the documentation, and the library itself gets received perfectly; an exact copy. So there is no noise at all, no garbage in the signal, other than explicit documentation mistakes. And those can be checked and measured by multiple parties over time, unlike when humans receive knowledge and it is stored inside their brains.
And anyways, the AI parts are being done by the library not by the recipient of the library. And those actions are designed around an objective logical system designed in layers on top of the CPU instructions themselves. This is not received knowledge, it is a self-contained logical system that can process instructions from humans and generate well-defined actions.
AI isn't built on pile of folksy wisdom passed down by programmers of the past, as common sense is. "Common sense" in programming is the same as anywhere else; it is bullshit that people repeat to each other that didn't manage to kill them yet, like "it doesn't matter what language you use," and "if I was told a problem was trivial, that means I don't have to worry about bugs when I implement it." Or more seriously, "always call free() after malloc()." Is it really always true, or is it merely often true? Does it matter if your absolutes aren't actually absolute? Are they still true?
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, they can't arrest you for having it in your pocket, they can only refuse to accept it.
Bars manage a middle ground; you have to surrender your CC before they serve you, and there is no way they're going to give it back without attempting to charge it. And it is a crime to hand them a card you know they can't charge.
Especially a Salon. That is insane... they live off of cash tips. Read: avoid taxes.
One is explicitly supposed to report tips in tax returns. What you are suggesting is that such businesses engage in systematic and wilful tax fraud - a very serious charge, which you are putting forth without any supporting evidence.
No, the claim was that the businesses tend to manage themselves in a way that minimizes their involvement in their employees' tax withholdings.
Are you sure you can read English?!
Systemic and willful tax fraud is why the business owner wants customers to pay in cash, not why it is necessary to accept cash in order to retain employees.
Life does not restrict naughtiness to a single concurrent instance.
Also remember, in the phrase "cash in king," they're talking about the business owner's cash, not yours. And they actually only mean liquid assets, eg, "cash flow."
With credit cards they have an easier time managing their cash flow, because they can get accurate information online from their bank. With cash, it isn't so easy; you have some pieces of paper or an electronic record that was created by somebody also handling the cash, and then a pile of cash somewhere, and eventually an aggregate bank deposit. It costs more to track the cash closely than you lose in payment fees from CCs.
If you want to use cash, the obvious answer is to patronize small businesses instead of chains, because they don't incur the same expenses to keep track of their cash. Plus, they might prefer cash for tax reasons.
Computers don't care who typed code it, it runs the same regardless of what letters are next to a person's name, or how long their letters have been carefully aged.
No need for scare-quotes around the word fixed, it is a bug bounty not some sort of contract to attempt to fix bugs. If they didn't fix it, they won't get paid.
My advice, do a web search for "printing money" and find out what it means when economists use that term.
Because it doesn't mean, "they spent money in a way I didn't approve of." And it isn't even close to that.
Is distributing data the only use case for FTP, or can it also be used to transfer data that isn't being distributed?
I find that running an FTP server on a tablet or phone is often the easiest way to get files onto a networked computer that isn't set up to share files over the network.
For example, some sort of machine like a laser printer or CNC that has a windows computer as the interface. Maybe it only has a USB port to accept files, but it is connected to the shop's wifi. No problem, I can just run cmd and then ftp from the command line!
It isn't dying, because the commands already exist and don't require any new integrations to be useful. And yet, they're still used by a lot of legacy scripts, installers and things like that, so they're not likely to be actually removed.
It just spends a lot of quiet time to itself these days.
Having a license doesn't mean that if you upload it and lie about where you got it, that you didn't harm the creator. Especially if you didn't give them any "consideration" (eg money) that would be consistent with selling that right. If it is a shrink-wrap license, and they present the service in a way that they know that video creators are trying to make money from the videos they upload, then they don't get very many rights from a shrink-wrap license.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure if she has a lawyer she can get paid here.
Just because they can use it, doesn't mean they can use it in any way, or lie about it in a way that harms the creator.
That whole thing is straight-up horse shit.
The root of your claim is about the publishing of economic data. Right here you'd doing a bait-and-switch and trying to imply that if you didn't publish financial numbers about the harms, then that somehow proves that the rule made the air "dirtier" and the emissions "more dangerous."
But they weren't found to have gotten anything about the public health aspects wrong.
You're just making up lies because it was Obama, and there is "something" about him that causes you to lie when you see his name. I wonder what it could be?
Don't be an idiot, "protip" is pejorative, not important-sounding.
It doesn't mean "I'm a pro" it means "you're an idiot."
Why the bait-and-switch? Earlier you were claiming it was scientific data that you're upset they didn't publish, now you're talking about non-scientific data.
It seems what actually happened is that they used the scientific data directly, without saying enough words about the politics that disguises itself as economics.
It seems you have a special "thing" for Obama. Gosh, I wonder why. (Looks out window at modern world) Oh, yeah, that's why. You're one of Them.
He's a neo-nazi, of course he doesn't have citations.
When you go "off the top of your head" you're just spewing crap you heard on AM radio.
John Kerry was negotiating on behalf of the United States Government. It is literally impossible for that to be a Logan Act violation.
The Clinton Foundation is a legit, grade A charity, and it is legal for charities to accept donations from Russia or from Russian people. In fact, you'll even find Russian products for sale in the supermarket. Odd that you think any sort of relationship with Russians is illegal. And even weirder that you would find a Logan Act violation by individuals on account of activities of a charity that is named after them. That's Pizzagate level bullshit you're obviously dumping into your brain, and then you recite the shit without even looking it up. Furthermore, they accepted funds to do charitable work; that isn't implicated by the Logan Act in any way. And the activities of a registered non-profit charity already do not include political negotiations. So, really, really, exceptionally stupid claim. Even as far as idiot neo-nazi conspiracy theories go, you're falling off the stupid end of the wagon.
Representative Pelosi is an elected member of the US Government, and China is one of the US's biggest trade partners. It is literally impossible for her to violate the Logan Act. She is an elected Representative.
The Logan Act came about because, in 1798, President Adams sent 3 trade representatives to France, and Dr. Logan, a professor and pacifist, engaged in private negotiations that interfered with the US position. That's what it bans; negotiating with a foreign power in contradiction to the US position. US government employees are not even implicated in the law. And certainly elected members of the US Government can't lack authorization to take their own position.
If that is what you carry on the top of your head, buy a hat, and remember to look shit up don't just trust your AM radio.
Not sure how you keep your nerd card if you're scared of earworms.
I say that because I'm Henry the Eighth I am, Henry the Eighth I am I am.
They probably spend more than that just on hosting.
That was an existing game company that knew what they were doing and they spent the money to hype it.
When they talk about software on cable newsvertainment channels, they were paid to. Twitter was totally mainstream before most people had ever heard of it; Ruby programmers knew about it before the hype train launched, but when they first started talking about it on the "news" it was a small site with just a few users. And they hadn't even turned it into "microblogging" yet, it was still asking the question, "What are you doing right now?" It was after they were already hyping it (hyping as a verb means to pay to have it talked about on newsvertainment) that they figured out what value the users found in it.
Angry Birds was being hyped for something like 2 years. You don't do that for $1m.
I listen to the song at least once a month. For the past 20 years. And I doubt I've been to the website other than the first time I heard about it here on slashdot.
I can totally see losing $50k on it, because it has a cult following and it couldM/em> have value. But $1m?!
I'd even say $10m would make more sense than $1m. You're not going to start a fad with $1m, and you don't need $1m to shoestring it. It should have been either highly funded, or minimally funded. The big mistake here is going medium.
Greek isn't really that difficult to translate into English.
For historical reasons. ;)
The "million" Persian cavalry was cited in the story as a rumor. Other military numbers are given by visual estimate, and there are detailed descriptions of the military engagements and who was where, who fought who, etc. The Ten Thousand is how many professional soldiers the Greeks had with them; that's just the people with full heavy armor. Each of them had a bunch of helpers, and there were lots of light units with them. They had numerous generals, and while Xenophon started as just a mercenary, he quickly rose during the campaign to be a general.
They describe the numbers because it was important to the story, if you assume that the intended audience would have their own military experience from that era. And for the same reason, the observations of numbers in the story are likely to be fairly accurate. I'm not sure why you presume that any sort of literary detail that you're not personally interested in must be "masturbary."[sic] And honestly, commentary on an English translation by a person who doesn't know the word masturbatory is a bit of an exercise in, well, you get it.
But absolutely, a story about an army that had to travel that far to get home, fighting through most of the lands as they went, is going to have a certain "mad man dragging his jock strap" character to it; because that is what it is like to engage in that sort of activity. If you're not ready to be mad, you're not ready to get home, you might as well dig your grave where you stand.
I don't think the Greeks cared at all about Arabic society, and they certainly didn't go that far south. They marched from Ionia through Turkey to what is now Syria, and crossed into Persia from the west. A route that was not considered wise at the time, but they were imposing enough to manage it. They fought a major battle with the Persians near what is now Baghdad. They were victorious in their own engagements, but the Persian prince they were fighting for died in the battle, and so their side had lost, and the story is their journey home. Most of the story takes places in Karduchia and Western Armenia.
I'm sure there were a few Arabs in the Persian army somewhere, but it wasn't part of the story. It is only in the last few hundred years that the Arab population have been that far north to border the Kurds.
How would they even know if they got a bid?
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Sears Holdings Corp Chairman Eddie Lampert has submitted a roughly $4.6 billion takeover bid for the bankrupt U.S. retailer
On the news. They're big enough to do it that way.
Location, Location, Location is not the top three rules for retail.
It is a book. About fast food restaurants. It is a good book with lessons for all types of retailers, but it is more of a biography of a businessperson than it is some sort of textbook. As penance for referencing it, you should be expected to go and actually read the whole thing, cover to cover! Repent!
Sears was a destination store; people would be at home, decide they wanted to go shopping, and drive to Sears. Location is a bigger concern for the smaller stores; they wanted to be near a Sears! And now, the other large stores with similar products to Sears are out at the edge of town. Not in any sort of premium locations. Location for them might just mean it is easy enough for the trucks to make deliveries, not having a high traffic rate like a fast food restaurant needs.
That book will teach you nothing about selecting locations for big-box retail, because it is explaining how this business guy ignored the traditional rules of selecting locations, and replaced them with a new set of concepts more appropriate to convenience shoppers. And in this new system, the location of the location becomes the primary thing; whereas for non-convenience stores, things like cost are really important, and having a super-premium location isn't.
I grew up with Sears and I wanted to shop there, but the last 20 years or so the customer service has just sucked. I don't really mind that the workers are clueless if I ask a question; I should have just read the manual anyways. But at Sears, there are so few workers that it is hard to get any help, and when you ask a question they're a bunch of jerks. At Home Depot or Lowes, they have lots of employees to ask questions, and they actually know the answer. The danger is that they might follow you around like a puppy trying to make sure you found what you needed. That's a lesser evil compared to clueless jerks, for sure.
I was still reminiscing about the Sears I grew up shopping at when I was shopping somewhere else. No surprise they're shutting down.
The website stuff shows why they couldn't succeed at switching to online, either. They did both poorly, instead of doing one well. If they had done either one well, they could have survived as a smaller version of that. But they can't survive by sucking at both.
Right, 2500 years ago when the Ten Thousand invaded Karduchia (in order to pass through it and escape the Persian Empire) they were victorious in their strategic retreat. They fought a running battle from the southern border, in what is now Iraq, all the way north into Western Armenia, where the people were much more accepting of strangers. (!)(lol)
The Karduchians had previously been famously invaded by 1 million Persian cavalry, none (!) of whom made it home. If you look at the topo map, you can see a really really long valley, not a river valley but rather the remnants of an ancient mountain chain, with steep sides and no exits but at the ends, something like 50 or 100 miles apart. They blocked the end with their army, and the whole length of the trench was lined with villagers throwing down stones.
The Greeks took a different route; they captured a guide, and went right through the heart of the land, down the twisting mountain roads that the Karduchians used for local traffic. Without a guide, you just go in circles, but with a guide, (and heavy infantry) they were able to fight from ridge to ridge in two teams.
And later Xenophon wrote that history down. So it is too late to erase Karduchia merely by winning some war, because victors of yesteryear already wrote it down. And being that they had no intention of war, the Greeks merely wanted to pass through the land, they give an honest and direct account. The Kurds refused to even negotiate for passage at all, but they did negotiate and respect temporary cease-fires for both sides to recover and bury the dead.
Just as you can find Palistine under the similar name Philistine on biblical-era maps, you can find Karduchia too.
If you read Anabasis by Xenophon, he describes in detail their northwest border, which is currently in land claimed by Turkey. If you use a topo map, you can see that their traditional land includes most of a mountain range that goes from just north and east of the Euphrates river in modern Iraq, north to their border with the land that was traditionally Western Armenia, east in Iran, and south nearly to the Persian Gulf.
The difference is, when you receive knowledge from other humans, you're not receiving an actual copy. You're receiving something new that purports to be a copy. And it is known to be a crappy system for collecting data, because it is full of garbage and doesn't have any effective system for filtering the noise.
This is why critical thinking is a more valuable learning skill than memorization.
Computers are excellent at memorization. So when an engineer builds an AI library that is actually an expert system for recombining certain classes of algorithms, the programmer using that library can simply receive knowledge about the API through the documentation, and the library itself gets received perfectly; an exact copy. So there is no noise at all, no garbage in the signal, other than explicit documentation mistakes. And those can be checked and measured by multiple parties over time, unlike when humans receive knowledge and it is stored inside their brains.
And anyways, the AI parts are being done by the library not by the recipient of the library. And those actions are designed around an objective logical system designed in layers on top of the CPU instructions themselves. This is not received knowledge, it is a self-contained logical system that can process instructions from humans and generate well-defined actions.
AI isn't built on pile of folksy wisdom passed down by programmers of the past, as common sense is. "Common sense" in programming is the same as anywhere else; it is bullshit that people repeat to each other that didn't manage to kill them yet, like "it doesn't matter what language you use," and "if I was told a problem was trivial, that means I don't have to worry about bugs when I implement it." Or more seriously, "always call free() after malloc()." Is it really always true, or is it merely often true? Does it matter if your absolutes aren't actually absolute? Are they still true?