The iPad had the Steve Jobs’ Reality Distortion Field to save it
Apple Vision Pro
The original article by the NYTimes:
The Birth of Cheap Communication (and Junk Mail) - By Randall Stross
You should open an issue with detailed examples including location so they can fix it
Lots of other websites have already copied the “pay or consent” ad model
Another one bites the dust?
I’ve seen this mentioned a few times before but never get how it works. How do you even use TikTok as a search engine?
The only evidence to overturn the election points to republicans
Bad bot
Then you are totally locked in with Apple devices and cannot switch to Android and take your passkeys with you
Typical 1-off error
Now thinking about it in terms of mathematical logic, the DoJ and Supreme Court‘s interpretations is wrong:
It’s actually a law of logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws) that says that:
not (A and B and C)
is equal to
(not A) or (not B) or (not C)
—
In this case:
The defendant is eligible for relief if he does not (A and B and C)
Which is the same as
The defendant is a eligible for relief if he does (not A) or (not B) or (not C)
—
Which is not what the DoJ is saying. The DoJ is saying that
not (A and B and C)
is equal to
(not A) and (not B) and (not C)
Right! I feel like I’m going crazy because I don’t see how can you interpret it the other way!
lower courts were sharply divided on the vital question of whether “and” bundles the conditions—as in, you don’t have (A), don’t have (B), and don’t have ©—which would mean a defendant who lacked any one of these conditions would be eligible for relief. The alternative reading, advocated by the Justice Department, holds that “and” really means “or”—that a defendant who met even one of the conditions would not be eligible for relief
The reporter seems to be getting this totally wrong. It’s like he is saying the exact opposite of what I understand. From my point of view:
If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR.
If a defendant would be eligible for relief if he lacked all of the conditions, that is interpreting that AND means AND.
Right! I wonder how did the probe send an entire memory dump back without them realizing. Was it programmed to do that when a system failed or something?
There’s also https://lmstudio.ai/