It was a 46wk term. Reportedly I was something close to 12 to 13lbs. I was her first 😬
GlitchyDigiBun
joined 2 years ago
Ahoy should host
I was supposed to be a Christmas baby. I was 6 weeks late. My siblings weren't so lucky. I sure wish I didn't know the time of year they "tried for another."
Your website gave me cancer. It's terminal.
I had Hotwheels, action figures, nerf guns, beyblades. Still love me some dick.
It's not that you can't make a more efficient device without it. Hell, if you wanted to impress people, you can absolutely populate a board with IC's and traces and build your own logic.
Orrrrr you could spend $45 to get a full GPIO header backed behind a vast online electronics community. Tbh pi's, arduinos, and other ARM core hobby kits give you a root skillset to base any project on. Once you can get logic through your code, there'e no need to figure out wire logic if you can program based on I/O and software variables. But it -is- a different skillset that you'll need to learn to use it efficiently.
Yet language and abstraction are the core of intelligence. You cannot have intelligence without 2 way communication, and if anything, your brain contains exactly that dictionary you describe. Ask any verbal autistic person, and 90% of their conversations are scripted to a fault. However, there's another component to intelligence that the Turing Test just scrapes against. I'm not philosophical enough to identify it, but it seems like the turing test is looking for lightning by listening for rumbling that might mean thunder.
Fuuuuck yes! Who's got an AC/10 and a bad attitude? You do! Yesss you dooo!
You're absolutely correct, and we should fight to ensure that the law is presented equally to all charges. That doesn't refute my point. This is the core foundation of British Common Law, that only a sure and clear conviction may be justly carried out. Any doubt leaves injustice as the outcome as sure as you claim it to be so for the poor. If we rewrite the rules or even disregard existing precident on the grounds that "well they wouldn't be just if it was us at the noose," then we are pushing for the type of system you (rightfully) claim to be unequally unjust.
I can tell you're being facetious, but you're 100% right. You do, indeed, need to give every benefit of the doubt in our legal process. That is what is meant by "innocent until proven guilty." They must make it so there is no foothold for appeal. No "well you didn't tell me..." or "you should have had a firm definition for..." No, if the legal system wants to take someone down, REALLY take them down, they must do it with every ounce of assurance and with no room for doubt that this person explicitly broke a law, in full knowledge and with warning, that they can be convicted to the full extent of said law.
But does it do Mando'A?