He built a website. He didn't dictate how people used it. That was the point. He was charged as a drug kingpin with mobster era consequences. His sentence didn't fit whatever crimes he did or didn't commit.
If someone facilitated a transaction of goods that were illegal between two people and received a cut of the sale, do you think they deserve some culpability?
Trump killed Net Neutrality during his first term and you think he would use it to justify the actions of someone running an internet black market that trafficked in drugs, prostitution and murder?
The difference between Obama’s ideal Section 230 and Trump’s is a good point. Even though the President doesn’t enact legislation, Trump issued a formal paper calling for changes to Section 230. Looks to me like DPR was more innocent under Obama.
> In practice it is possible, in a flash memory made on a mature process such as 40nm, to store reliably a range of charges that correspond to a digital resolution of 8 bits.
> When a charge is programmed into a flash memory device, its electric field
has an effect on any signal passing through it. In the Mythic architecture, the
flash transistor acts as a variable resistor that reduces the signal level passing
to the output. That reduction is proportional to the analog value stored in the
memory. This simple effect implements the multiplication stage found in
DNN calculations. The accumulation process, in which the output from each
of those calculations is summed, is handled by aggregating the output of an
entire column of memory cells. Thanks to these two properties, the Mythic
architecture can process an entire input vector in a single step rather than
iterating at high speed as in a digital processor
There is no possible way to have style without the potential to bother someone. Just write how you feel. If the readers are so offended, they can stop reading. Life will go on.
There are so many less hurtful words, I can’t accept the idea that style requires these particular words. I mean the sentence is clunky with “neurodivergent” anyway, and this unusual use of the word sticks out and is distracting. The style is not improved by this pick.
How about “awful” “asinine” or “shit-tastic” instead?
There's no way to say "this thing is rubbish" without the potential to bother people who like it. But it's entirely possible to say it without pissing off those who don't speak, or have motor disabilities, or like Justin Bieber.
So then just use the n-word? Call disabled people the r-word?
No. You can have style without being offensive. You dont have to punch at someone to have style.
I use cracked software until it is too useful or frustrating to use and the economics makes sense.
If you are making money from something or using it enough that you want support / reliability, pay for it and shame on you if you don't
Don't gimp your cracked stuff for the college kids and evening hacks just trying to see if they like something or if they can build its use into a business.
"Freedom of speech but not freedom of reach". Sounds like tyranny of a different form. I believe that any platform that enjoys protections of the federal government should be required by law to have 100% open moderation policies, regardless of whether it is reach or speech. Those policies should be required to be "legally" oriented and not based on platform preferences. Let the actual police handle policing.
