Seems unlikely to be the case here if what one of the mods said is true:
> We verified this isn't just us or just this source (it's a link in a NYT article to a PDF anyway, about the most safe combo I can think of)
Might be able to find the article in question by looking for NYT links posted to the subreddit recently (if the presumably-deleted archive link was posted separately as a reply).
Perhaps, but it could also just be "take our word for it" devolving into more "take our extended word for it". Being prepared to make an alarming enough claim that it sparks discussion outside of the sub but being unwilling to provide evidence remains suspicious.
That suspicion becomes more grounded when the conversation with the subreddits mod regarding why the claim was made without a willingness to provide evidence looks like this:
>If you're going to make an allegation like this, it's necessary to be specific. Specifically, what is the malware, and what is the evidence that it was "injected"? This is "consult a security researcher" and "speak to the media" territory, not "mod announcement" territory.
>>No it's not. These archive sites are a legal gray area anyway. We don't have to consult anyone to decide not to allow the links. No we are not talking to the media, we're not providing research, or a proof. I'm not calling the mayor. We are reddit mods . This is purely about community management.
Plus, Autodesk trademarking the term is partly to prevent others finding use for it ("Cyberspace (TM) refers to a software product of Autodesk, Inc. Were any other software vendor to employ the term for one of their products, Autodesk would justifiable be upset.")
Specifically the `q.0 = Some(&l);` violating 4.15.2:40 ("An assignment expression requires that the type of its value operand is a subtype of the type of its assignee operand.")
I'm not in California and DraftKings blocks me connecting with a VPN, so they just don't seem to be distinguishing whether a VPN user is in California (which is the impossible part of this law).
Utah argues that websites can "age assure VPN-using Utahns, [so] any decision by Aylo to instead age-verify all users would be a voluntary business choice, not an effect forced by Utah law" because regulating non-Utah users on non-Utah sites is not something the Utah law can constitutionally do under the Dormant Commerce Clause.
So in theory sites could block all VPN users (if you can somehow "perfectly (1) detect VPN/proxy users"), but if the law necessitates that nationally/globally then it's unconstitutional anyway. It's the age assuring of VPN-users specifically from Utah part that Utah are relying on being possible for the law the be constitutional.
> seems like a data entry problem that would/could have happened without Flock
Sounds as though there was also a Flock error matching the (misentered) "34 DTM" in the database to the author's number plate of "34 10 DTM" with a small "10":
> And Flock’s AI tech wasn’t registering that non-standard little number when it began picking up the Range Rover around town. It just saw 34 DTM in large type and started alerting the local police.
I feel punishment is largely a means to the end of reducing overall harm. If a vehicle is less likely to kill me, that's my preferred option regardless of whether it achieved that safety through negative consequences for the driver or through gradient descent optimizing a loss function.
I feel sneaking in "at any given time" makes the fixed vs growable pie distinction pretty much meaningless; even printing fiat takes some time. At a certain time there's a certain number of doctors (and everything else), but the number of doctors in a country can obviously increase over time, including by immigration.
> you need to decide which is it—delete your account when done or saved forever. Everyone yells privacy, “Account Delete” must but when it happens, you cry all over.
Requesting account deletion should delete the associated data, but a paid subscription lapsing doesn't need to.
I think the confusion is that robrain somehow understood smokel's objection as being "all-time total downloads obviously increase over time, so this is meaningless", rather than what smokel actually said which was "the number of weekly downloads has simply been increasing over time". Which is why robrain quoted LibreOffice's "This is the highest number of downloads in the first week”, to counter the idea (which nobody suggested) that the record was just about all-time cumulative downloads going up.
That's then what tempfile was questioning how it contradicted smokel's claim (because it doesn't, just an imagined claim). Your points, that if the number of weekly downloads isn't actually consistently increasing then this could still be meaningful, are valid - but irrelevant to tempfile who was wasn't arguing that this is meaningless; you should argue that to smokel instead.
> We verified this isn't just us or just this source (it's a link in a NYT article to a PDF anyway, about the most safe combo I can think of)
Might be able to find the article in question by looking for NYT links posted to the subreddit recently (if the presumably-deleted archive link was posted separately as a reply).
reply