By rights the simple comeback is they can lie to you so F'em.
The real answer is you don't offer any explaination because it's not something you need to explain or get anyone's permission for.
Feel free to wonder. Give me a hard time and I'll just do my best to give you a hard time back. After you confiscate my stuff and detain me and I turn out not to have broken any laws, I'll do everything I can think of to extract an apology and compensation and penalty. Afro Man is my hero. You will become my new career.
That's my little fantasy anyway but I do see it as a duty to at least resist a little. In reality I'll fold pretty easy but I will be as much sand in the gears as I can.
Then the taxpayers should probably object to how the police behave. I mean WTF is the damned perpetrator supposedly costing the taxpayers here? Why in the world even offer an argument like this?
When you object to being punched in the face, the problem is the punching in the face not the objection! If the bystanders don't like the fallout, "accept your punching more quietly and without spilling my drink" is not among the valid responses.
Follow the usernames in the response chain. I have two phones for the exact same reason as well: work issued & personal. It would hold up just because it’s actually true. There’s no need to arrange anything beyond how they are naturally arranged.
You're not lying to the police in this situation if you've ever done anything ever remotely related to work on the "faux" phone only. That is still considered the "whole truth" in that scenario and would be easy to defend. It's absolutely absurd we need to even think ahead like this, but cops are (mostly) dumb enforcement. They don't actually know the laws in-depth and in many cases do not abide by them - which is the root of labeling them as such. Beating a cop at the game they're playing is not hard, you just have to know every question they ask is loaded and for a reason.
A sect of realpolitik theorists outlined why Russia would be compelled to invade Ukraine. Even Kissinger thought that expansion of NATO westward would compel war with Russia. To say no one predicted this or that it’s self-defeating for Russia is a mistake of analysis. The war logically follows from Russia’s security goals.
> The war logically follows from Russia’s security goals.
This framing is found only in propaganda put out for foreign consumption. Professionals like Kozyrev, who was the minister or foreign affairs of the Russian Federation (1990-1996) and in charge of rebuilding RF's international relations after the disintegration of the USSR, have openly called this bullshit that only manipulated idiots believe, because the "security goals" argument makes no sense whatsoever if you spend more than 10 seconds on it.
According to Kozyrev, instead of a patchwork of dysfunctional countries at war with each other like in the former Yugoslavia (with overspilling effects on Russia), EU and NATO integration helped build modern, peaceful and predictable countries in Central and Eastern Europe, which in practical terms meant "free-of-charge security" (his term) for Russia. What's there to complain about?
Furthermore, Mearsheimer et al treat countries as monoliths and completely ignore the competing interests of groups and individuals within them. Russia of the early 1990s was a flawed democracy; today it is a totalitarian dictatorship. The war against Ukraine is a downstream effect of the destruction of Russian democracy and consolidation of absolute power into the hands of Putin's security apparatus gang. Putin wants to be remembered as a "great ruler" and that's all there is to it; a small man who managed to gain absolute power, no different from Hitler.
I don’t think that China need even consider Ukraine an adversary, but a stronger Russian state (or one more interested in its eastern flank) is not good for China. Ukraine is simply collateral damage.
There's no Russian state anymore, there's a mafia that runs the country, whose only goal is to stay in power at any cost. Hence Putin looks for an ally/protector in China because it will never insist on pushing Russia towards democracy the way other centers of power would (or would have, in case of the pre-Trump US). China will keep extracting big concessions from that vulnerability in exchange for their providing life support to the Russian regime.
It's a curious symbiosis that is very much against the interests of Russia, but that's what you get when a mafia takes over your country.
I agree Pangram's UI is awful and often misleading. Their underlying classifier model is pretty accurate in my experience, though, at least in the sense that it has very few natural false positives. If you disagree, please send me some long-form verifiable false positives that were not explicitly written to trick Pangram. I love to learn.
I just sent you a long article which you could not have read in the time it took you to reply. I would suggest you start there and read that article, which outlines several cases where the author was able to create contrived false positives and negatives.
Contrived false positives and negatives could (and should!) always be possible. That doesn't tell us anything about the natural false positive and negative rates, and a lot of people who have actively tried to use voice instruction to get models to consistently fool the detector without iterating against it directly have failed.
This is awesome, I will certainly use it for some of my recent embedded work. Will try and contribute back as well.
reply