If I go to someone and offer them a shoe box full of gold for 100$, no I wont open the box, and they agree, then I don’t think that is a scam and more that said person is too stupid to be in public.

This is exactly the mindset of a scammer, ‘well, if they’re so stupid that they let me scam them then they deserve it’.

Social media where ‘if you don’t agree with me you’re a bad person and probably deserve to die’ is the standard position for the outrage junkies.

It just depends on the location.

Some areas have water shortages where resources are already strained and other areas have abundant water so that no amount of usage will make a dent.

It not that it isn’t a problem at all, it’s just it is only a problem in specific places and not an inherent issue with datacenters everywhere. Building datacenters in a desert would cause water issues, building them near the great lakes wouldn’t impact water availability in the slightest.

They do prefer drinking water, because it’s already treated and so the equipment/maintenance to use it is lower and they can just evaporate it away. In other areas, or if required by legislation, they could run coolant to the machines and then cool the coolant using dirtier sources (including seawater).

It’s a camera, like the millions of cameras that are around us every day.

If you’re a creep then it’s a camera for creeps. If you’re not, then there are plenty of legitimate uses providing that all video is kept locally and not uploaded to Meta/Amazon/Google’s servers.

They use the fact that they have multiple microphones and some audio processing to isolate the voice of the person from the background noise. Taking your earbuds out would make it harder to hear them, not easier.

In noisy areas (like a bar) it can be the difference between being able to understand the person you’re with and being deafened by the background noise.

It’s all done on your device so it makes zero sense that they would charge a subscription other than as a means of financial extortion to use the hardware that you paid for.

and before they’re born.

AI detection tools are very hit or miss.

It’s like spam detection. Whatever they’re looking for with their tool, the spammers will change so that the tool doesn’t detect it. They will catch some people, but if there is money to be made then people will find ways to work around the detection.

If buying is not owning, then piracy is not stealing

Saying he ‘made a donation’ is downplaying his role. It makes it sound like he’s just some guy doing what everyone else does to participate in politics…

The 2025 donation accounted for 72% of the party’s total income last year. … According to data collected by DonationWatch, 2025 was the most lucrative year in the party’s history, netting a total of 5.58 million SEK. For comparison, the party received just 202,000 SEK in total donations throughout 2024.

Just the annual interest on his donation is more that all of their other donations for the entire year combined.

He didn’t just make a donation, he is practically their sole source of financing.

It’s a nice thought, but it depends on people disclosing that they used AI.

They’ve created a monetary incentive for people to hide their use of AI. Sure, they may catch the people who use commercial services which watermark their output but music generation can be done on relatively inexpensive (compared to frontier LLMs) hardware and there is no way to automatically detect it.

It’s a good thing that Tidal is doing, I’m just skeptical that it’ll do much except to make people more creative about hiding it.

The vulnerability existed for 23 years, was recently discovered and patched and that patch introduced a new bug

That’s fair, I was adding a bit of my own judgment into that statement.

I believe that the circuit court will find that this is a typical search, requiring a warrant, but the Supreme Court didn’t explicitly say that.

This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn’t a warrant.

Of course, you’re right that there are other ways to prove location, but the digital evidence (as in this case) would be suppressed and the jury would not hear it.

The case that launched this Supreme Court decision is pretty textbook poison fruit. The subsequent search warrant which obtained the gun and cash was obtained specifically because of the geofence warrant. The lower court still has to determine the legality of the original warrant, but if it was found to be unreasonable (likely, overly broad) then all of the evidence including the custodial confession would be tossed.

So, like every other aspect of life in the US then

Lol

I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡

I’m talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you’re crafting your bad faith arguments.

As you and I both know, a case built on illegally obtained evidence is also illegal.

They can present whatever arguments they’d like and a judge can read the above Supreme Court case, rule that their case is built on illegal evidence and dismiss it. If that judge does not the the judges in the court of appeals can overturn the lower court.

Yes, if the world were a John Grisham novel, some nefarious group could blackmail multiple judges across all levels of the appellate provesd, rig the system to ensure they’re all assigned the case (by blackmailing the clerk of clurt) in order to ensure that they would have a chance to show illegally obtained location evidence to the jury, all 12 of whom are also blackmailed (why not?) to prove a person’s phone was at a specific location.

Do you have any other fantasy scenarios that need co-signing?

Are you asking for help understating what I wrote? Or do you think that sarcastically attacking strawmen of your own creation is an argument?

Corrupt judges and bad decisions are why courts of appeal exist. These courts use multiple judges chosen at random specifically to prevent the kind of collusive behaviour that you’re implying.

The President doing illegal things has no bearing on the admissibility of evidence.

The judge decides what is allowed to be used at trial. If the prosecution ignore the judge and presents it anyway then the judge rules the case a mistrial. If the judge allows it then the court of appeal would overturn the ruling.

This doesn’t stop them from illegally obtaining the evidence, but it provides the ruling that prevents it from being used at trial.