Almost certainly, or else the suit could be dismissed on Double Jeopardy grounds. Even then, he would probably just appeal to the Supreme Court and get them to make up some reason to rule in his favor.
De-worming animals is probably still for the best. Even hookworms can be fatal to dogs, for example. And there are other worm parasites way worse than hookworms, like roundworms that can burrow through the intestines and up into the host's heart and brain. I wouldn't take the risk.
As much of a Trump as he is, my tinfoil hat theory is that we really, really need to keep this guy from getting Epstein'd. Have extra windows and livestream cameras if necessary. Cause if it happens, dems are 100% getting blamed and a few riots would be the best case scenario.
(No, I'm not advocating for it, just predicting it would happen in my rando crackpot theory.)
Dreams are at least somewhat influenced by your recent thoughts and experiences. For example, many studies found that people dreamed more about disease and confinement during the pandemic (here's a medical journal article about it). You probably have a higher chance of influencing the subject of your dreams if you focus on the desired subject enough during the day.
Interesting, so what happens when an AI creates art that would infringe on a human's copyright? Would AI art of Mickey Mouse be public domain, meaning AI could be the end of Disney's insane licensing fee?
Edit: Nevermind, turns out this article is just editorialized. It isn't public domain, it just isn't eligible for the AI's creator to copyright it if it's fully autonomous.
afaik Amazon tries to offload the work of vetting its vendors by requiring them to have a registered trademark. This led to all the sketchy sellers making tons of fake companies with random strings of letters as names, knowing the USPTO is going to approve "AEGIJDU Clothing" because nobody is ever going to contest that name.
That's why you see a ton of identical products listed with supposedly different, super random brand names, in case Amazon tries to take down one of the "vendors" (aka, one of the real vendor's many fronts).
When a console game finally releases a PC port and the title screen still says "Press Start," you know the keys are going to be completely unhinged like, "I" to open your inventory. "C" is yes, and "V" is no, except in the escape menu, where "Enter" is yes and "Backspace" is extra-yes. Left-click to either attack or walk forward, depending on how your character is feeling.
I get this in theory but it gave me the hilarious mental image of someone gathering their phone, keys, wallet, going to their local polling station, showing their ID, walking to the voting machine, then thinking, "Oh no, I'm allowed to vote for TWO people?" and immediately bolting out the door.
A sizable portion of the population would convince themselves that the sky is green, if that was their party's official position.
And a sizable portion of politicians, of a certain moral character, would take the official position that the sky is green if someone paid them enough.
On an unrelated note, I wonder which party is heavily sponsored by the oil and gas industry?
I feel like at this point, accurately reporting the state of the world counts as 'Democratic scaremongering.' Climate change is making the world less habitable. The coronavirus is capable of killing you. Some people will die as a direct result of the current forced-birth laws. It's possible to have a functioning society without racism and sexism. For some reason, these facts are all "political" and it's not the Democrats who are contesting them.
Galaxy brain idea: Just encrypt your messages manually. Agree on an algorithm and trade keys in-person, then send each other encrypted files that you decrypt with a separate program (and for added privacy, on a separate device that doesn't have network access). It's not convenient at all but the idea is hilarious.
There's an urban myth at my university that two students did this to test rumors that the school emails were being monitored, and after a few weeks later IT emailed them asking them to stop.
Agreeing with priapus, no idea what OP is on about but the one here is in really poor taste. Saying generalized statements and trying to describe an entire community as if your experiences are universal, especially trying to paint the entire community in a negative light, is uneducated and weird.
It would be like saying, "I feel like men are dangerous and creepy. They seem to go out of their way to get offended when we tell them we don't want to talk to them. Like, I'm sorry some people in the country have made them feel like they need female attention, but they're hurting their own cause by insisting that they deserve sex all the time."
Maybe it's true about a subset of the group, and that's probably the subset you will see if you are exclusively browsing hateful content all the time. But a few real life conversations with real life people will show that those statements are barely accurate at all for the majority of them.
A more appropriate way to express themselves would have been centered on their own experiences - "I feel like I have to be careful expressing my views on trans people because I see people getting offended over innocuous questions," etc etc. Very very different tone.
It's unfortunate... although... there is a certain age bracket of people who actively vote with the intention of making these problems worse for everyone. One can only hope the problem is self-solving.
It's a clever take, but if true, then it may be inevitable. Politically, even if one party tries to pass the regulations proposed here, the other will 100% use the catch-all "we need to regulate AI!!!!!" scare tactics as an excuse to accept corporate bri-- I mean, to permit lobbying against any rights to free information.
It could still theoretically be that our reality is some kind of entertainment. For example, people enjoy playing The Sims. There are still active communities for the older versions even though there are newer, more engaging games out there. And more generally, some people prefer old games even though their computers have like 1000x the processing power needed to run it.
If the reality we experience is a simulation, it could be for similar motivations, the hardware would be sophisticated but still a user will run whatever they prefer on it.
The "high-tech solutions" were sustainable energy, banning mass animal farms, and regulating industrial pollution.
And even if we did come up with a big tech solution that works for now, literally every business would then think, "Nice, now we don't have to care about our carbon footprint," until even our tech can't keep up anymore and we're back at square one.
Almost certainly, or else the suit could be dismissed on Double Jeopardy grounds. Even then, he would probably just appeal to the Supreme Court and get them to make up some reason to rule in his favor.