While this list is accurate enough, I assume the developer doesn't have to support older Android phones, because ... yeah. That's hell.

But it is interesting that most of the listed issues that are genuine bugs are fairly minor, while the show-stoppers are largely Apple trying to protect user's from bad actors.

Which, as a developer, I hate. But as a user, I appreciate.

Surfing the web on my Android devices is absolute madness in certain segments of the web.

"If porn can be narrowly targeted, why not books?"

You cannot narrowly target a medium.

IIRC didn't the courts empower themselves to interpret the constitution? Nothing in the constitution says they can. Of course, since they interpret the constitution, they can just insert an interpretation that says they interpret the constitution...

yes. IMO one can argue that it was a very reasonable pragmatic decision that set a questionable precedent for branches of the government creating powers for themselves out of whole cloth. There is a LOT of commentary in intellectual circles that hail Marbury v. Madison as some sort of genius decision, and it's quite frankly horrifying.

True, but the executive and legislator are bound to ignore the courts if their interpretation violates the constitution. The judicial branch for instance can't simply declare that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" means that "Clarence Thomas is god emperor of the US and commands all the armed forces."

If they could interpret the constitution and that was that, then the judicial branch would basically have ultimate power and be exempted from the checks the other branches have on them.

They could still be impeached by the legislative branch.

The thing authorizing that -- the constitution. So unless the legislative can ignore the "interpretation" for the purposes of impeachment, the court can simply "interpret" the part that you think authorizes impeachment to just mean something like "the meaning of life is 54."

To be honest I am not sure if you are even discussing this in good faith anymore. The idea that the Supreme Court could render impeachment of them null and void and the legislative and executive branches would just be :shrugging-emoji: is a little silly.

Yes, the court’s job is to interpret the law. But the Constitution is not code and the judges are not the CPU. Ultimately, the rule of law will always be dependent on people.

The problem is that I don't believe that the court is arguing in good faith any more. In which case silly interpretations don't seem beyond the realm of possibility.

I'm assured by lawyers of both parties that this is not the case. And since I am not a lawyer their understanding is worth a lot more than mine. But as someone who does have significant credentials in philosophical and scientific reasoning, I can say that legal reasoning is not at all what I am familiar with.

The justices would be jailed by the executive, swiftly, if they refused to acknowledge impeachment.

Yes, exactly, the executive can ignore the court's interpretation, including an incorrect interpretation of impeachment (perhaps interpreted in such a way that impeachment as you know it would be impossible), if it violates the constitution.

The executive cannot ignore the court's interpretation on their own.

Christ, are you in high school? This shit is covered in like sophomore year social studies.

OK so the court can then simply declare an "interpretation" of impeachment that makes it impossible, or meaningless then, or perhaps also interprets any such jailing by the executive as illegal. Since they are the ones that get to decide what the text written in the constitution actually is interpreted to mean and apparently their "interpretation" cannot be ignored.

That’s called a constitutional crisis and then gets into bringing guns out to see who’s really in charge.

They very much are not bound to ignore the courts. That's not a thing. That's very explicitly not a thing. Why would you think that's a thing?

I remember when I could trust Federal Prosecutors when they announced a crime had been committed.

The Times is on the side of "reporting things that people say."

This is about the thin skin of a government official who can't stand the fact no one serious respects him.

Same coin, other side.

The era of petty government.

Big and petty.

You can't say you invented OnlyFans unless your product was named OnlyFans.

Yes.

I don't feel like they measured anything. They just confirmed that tech stocks in the US did pretty well.

They measured the investment facility of all those LLMs. That's pretty much what the title says. And they had dramatically different outcomes. So that tells me something.

They "proved" that US tech stocks did better than portfolios with less US tech stocks over a recent, very short time range. 1. You didn't know that? 2. Whata re you going to do with this "new information"?

As a stock-trading exercise? Nothing, as you note. As an AI investigation it says plenty. Which is the point I was making (and got missed by all those stock-trading self-appointed experts who fastened onto that)

I mean, what it kinda tells me is that people talk about tech stocks the most, so that's what was most prevalent in the training data, so that's what most of the LLMs said to invest in. That's the kind of strategy that works until it really doesn't.

Cue 2020 or so. I do have investments in tech stocks but I have a lot more conservative investments too.

It shows nothing. This is a bullshit stunt that should be obvious to anyone who has placed a few trades.

Unless you think of it as an AI exercise, not a stock trading exercise. Which point evaded most people.