Stack Exchange
log in

Kevin

 Discussion on question by JobHunter69…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Kevin
May 14 17:03
@RobbieGoodwin: It is certainly not the airline's duty to tell you how to comply with customs law. Their responsibility mostly ends when you get off the plane, and entirely ends when you clear immigration (not customs). As for the government... it depends which government we're talking about. A lot of them will just point you to the statute and tell you to figure it out on your own, or tell you to hire a lawyer, etc.
 

 Discussion on answer by Philipp: Why …

Imported from a comment discussion on gamedev.stackexchange.co...
Kevin
May 13 19:51
Point of order: Generic, game-agnostic, completely authoritative servers do exist. They are more commonly known as "cloud gaming" or "game streaming," and are (as you correctly point out) exorbitantly expensive to operate at scale. They also have a variety of other quirks and problems, with input latency and internet reliability at the top of the list. But they can and do exist.
 

 Discussion on question by Hani Abdull…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Kevin
Jan 30 11:03
@Relaxed: It all depends on the specifics. The application will probably require the applicant to make (or agree to) specific statements about their supposed fear of persecution in their home country. If those statements turn out to be lies, then most immigration regimes will have absolutely no problem holding that against the applicant as if they had lied on a visa application.
 

 Discussion on answer by Dale M: Is th…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Kevin
Jan 22 19:57
@JoeW: Assuming that all of the lower courts uniformly reject the EO as Wong Kim Ark seems to require, I could imagine SCOTUS deciding that it's not worth bothering to hear an appeal. But if the Fifth Circuit, or any other circuit court, comes up with some creative reinterpretation of Wong Kim Ark and upholds the EO, then it is difficult to see how SCOTUS could justify turning down an appeal.
 

 Discussion on answer by lee pappas: I…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Kevin
Jan 22 06:44
@leepappas: You clearly understood that I meant "valid." This conversation does not appear to serve any useful purpose, so I will no longer reply to it.
Kevin
Jan 22 06:44
@leepappas: Stack Exchange is not an advertising platform. If your answer cannot stand on its own, then it deserves to be downvoted.
Kevin
Jan 22 06:44
@leepappas: You cannot simply say "it is evident." That is not a logical argument, it is proof by assertion.
Kevin
Jan 22 06:44
Downvoting because the part with the truth tables is incomplete, and the part using rules of inference does not adequately explain the acronyms. Presuming that the acronyms are rules of inference, you must explain why each rule of inference is forced to be sound in an arbitrary many-valued logic, before you may use that rule of inference in a proof. You cannot simply appeal to natural deduction, because that is an implementation of two-valued logic, and its rules of inference might fail to apply under N-valued logic.
 

 Discussion on answer by Avery: Did Wi…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Kevin
Jan 17 11:28
@Tim: If that's really what they are attempting to do, then they are doing an atrocious job of it.
Kevin
Jan 17 11:28
@MichaelW.: Selling things overseas is usually about money. There is no profit to be made in writing articles about unrepresented parts of the world, or encouraging others to do so.
Kevin
Jan 17 11:28
Good answer. One point of clarification: The WMF, generally speaking, does not employ people who directly edit Wikipedia (with extremely rare exceptions). They do a lot of outreach, workshops, etc., but the wiki is not written by them or their employees. The mention of "safety" is also suggestive of the T&S team, which does things that look a little more like traditional moderation.
 

 Discussion on answer by Kevin: Is it …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Kevin
Nov 19, 2024 15:38
@user71659: Asked and answered in 2023. Comment flagged since I have already clearly told you to stop pinging me. Please do not reply again.
Kevin
Nov 19, 2024 15:38
@user71659: Since there is nothing in my answer which talks about ISP caching (and, frankly, 17 USC 512 is very long and it is not immediately obvious that any part of it is applicable to web browsers), I must assume you are attempting to reply to the comment discussion from 2023. I have no interest in reviving that debate, as I have said repeatedly in prior comments. Please take it to chat or ask a new question.
Kevin
Nov 19, 2024 15:38
@endolith: I have read your arguments. I have explained why I disagree with them. Please stop pinging my inbox.
Kevin
Nov 19, 2024 15:38
@endolith: Yes. Please do not make any further comments unless there is a specific improvement you want to suggest.
Kevin
Nov 19, 2024 15:38
@endolith: You told me that commerciality "is cited in the rationale for why web browser caches are fair use," and I responded to that. To respond to the fourth factor concern (which has nothing to do with commerciality) would be a whole different answer, but in short: I think you are reading the fourth factor much more broadly than it actually sweeps. We're not talking about the model's possible outputs, but about the model itself. The model is not a market substitute for any of its training inputs, even though it might be used to create such outputs (which could separately be infringing).
Kevin
Nov 19, 2024 15:38
More to the point, Chrome is made by a for-profit company. So is Safari, as were many older browsers such as Netscape and MSIE. If commerciality were enough to defeat the fair use argument in this context, then web browsers' caches would not be fair use either.
Kevin
Nov 19, 2024 15:38
@endolith: No, it is part of one of the four factors, which in full is the "purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." But under US case law, this factor also includes whether and to what extent the use is transformative. The AI companies can somewhat credibly argue that the model is significantly transformative, because it (the model, not its outputs) serves a fundamentally different function to the training works. This would mitigate any commercial motive the court might ascribe to the defendants.
Kevin
Nov 19, 2024 15:38
@endolith: Incorrect, fair use is not inherently contingent on being noncommercial. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., Author's Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., and several other cases. Furthermore, OpenAI is ultimately controlled by a nonprofit entity, so it may not make a difference in their case.
 

 Discussion on answer by Barmar: Can a…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Kevin
Nov 18, 2024 20:21
2 weeks is not a requirement at all. It is a courtesy, which has no legal significance whatsoever. Any penalty would be reputational (which matters a great deal in some industries).
 

 Discussion on question by Adam Willia…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Kevin
Sep 20, 2024 02:02
See also this useful list of consumer products which really are "chemical-free".
 

 Discussion on answer by Barmar: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Kevin
Aug 6, 2024 08:28
@Rushi: I am not interested in watching a video of some debate where the arguments I personally agree with may or may not be properly represented. If you have an authority that I can read, preferably one with real citations to the literature (i.e. not just random theologians arguing with random atheists for entertainment, but something substantive like SEP), you can link that.
Kevin
Aug 6, 2024 08:28
@Rushi: Wars are a poor argument, considering how many of them have been fought (or at least post-hoc rationalized) on religious grounds.
 

 Discussion on answer by Ennar: The ax…

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...
Kevin
Jul 18, 2024 13:59
@KamilKiełczewski: Under V = L, the axiom of global choice not only holds, but can be proved constructively, so in the model L, every set has a constructible choice function (which is just the appropriate subset of the global choice function). Since L is a model of ZFC, it follows that we cannot prove from within ZFC that a particular set has no constructible choice function, because that proof would not be sound over L.
 

 Discussion on answer by Just Some Old…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Kevin
Jul 11, 2024 13:11
Note that the extended reals are seldom used in the context of calculus. Instead, we usually resort to the hyperreals, which do indeed have all the "usual" algebraic properties (except for some more complicated things, such as Dedekind completeness - which it turns out you don't need in the first place).
 

 Discussion on question by AUTIST INC:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Kevin
Jun 27, 2024 14:58
@Conifold: It is not well-ordered under the usual ordering. If you accept the axiom of choice, then it is well-ordered under some nonstandard ordering (which is basically impossible to usefully describe, but should have a structure reminiscent of some uncountable prefix of the ordinal numbers).
 

 Discussion on answer by Kevin: Why is…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Kevin
Jun 25, 2024 00:19
Anyway, I have now edited my answer to clarify that a physically infallible predictor is well beyond the scope of the problem as originally stated by Newcomb, so I will not be further addressing that issue here or elsewhere.
Kevin
Jun 25, 2024 00:12
My answer does not and cannot anticipate every conceivable variation of the game, especially where we allow for unphysical retrocausation.
Kevin
Jun 25, 2024 00:11
In other words: The "game that [I am] playing" is the game as it is described in the source text. The game that you are playing appears to be an entirely different game of your own creation.
Kevin
Jun 25, 2024 00:10
@haxor789 The problem explicitly states that the predictor may not change the contents of the box after the prediction is made. The problem also allows for the predictor being wrong some percentage of the time (even a fairly large percentage of the time). If you assert that the predictor must always be correct, you find yourself in the fantasy version of the problem that several other answers object to. So we have to allow for a fallible predictor, or else the whole problem is nonsense.
Kevin
Jun 24, 2024 11:00
@mudskipper: We can cut out the observer and imagine that box B is transparent. The problem is otherwise unchanged. What is the correct strategy in that case? If you see that B is empty, you take both, because $1000 > $0. If you see that B has $1 million in it... you also take both, because $1,001,000 > $1,000,000. Why should that strategy be invalidated just because B is opaque?
Kevin
Jun 24, 2024 11:00
@mudskipper: The observer would tell you to take both boxes regardless of how much money is in B. Because by the time the observer is standing there, B already has money or no money in it, and can no longer change. From the observer's perspective, it is too late to worry about what the predictor will or will not do - it has already been done, and the only question is whether you also get an extra $1000 on top of whatever the predictor decided to give you. The problem explicitly rules out the predictor changing the contents of B in response to your choice, after you have actually made it.
Kevin
Jun 24, 2024 11:00
@mudskipper: No, I am not saying the description is ambiguous. I am saying that the one boxer position fails to explain why this particular method of filling B is so extraordinarily special, that it somehow merits an exceptional treatment different to every other method of filling B. In other words, it fails to explain why the generalized two-box argument does not apply to the Newcomb game, even though it is logically constructed to apply to every variant of this two-box game.
Kevin
Jun 24, 2024 11:00
@mudskipper: It would seem you are a one boxer. What you have written is very interesting, but it is not a rebuttal to the two box position. Anyway, you asked me to show you where the confusion lies. I did so. Do not now complain that my answer is confusing. I gave you exactly the confusion you requested.
Kevin
Jun 24, 2024 11:00
@mudskipper: That does not matter. The simpler version of the game allows for any method of filling B under the sun. Taking into account the player's personality is a method of filling B under the sun, so it falls within the parameters of the simpler game. It is not enough to claim the game was "changed," we must refute the reasoning as applied to the simpler game, because the simpler game is a superset of the real game.
 

 Discussion on answer by Corbin: Is th…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Kevin
Jun 7, 2024 08:56
@user21820: Yes, I am familiar with Kleene's proof by reduction to the halting problem. But there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) showing that Wittgenstein read Kleene, which is unfortunate but not necessarily inexcusable (Kleene's paper had a rather abstruse introduction, and he takes quite some time to get to incompleteness per se, so Wittgenstein plausibly could have skimmed it, thought it uninteresting or inadequately motivated, and failed to grasp its implications in full).
Kevin
Jun 7, 2024 08:56
@Bumble: In fairness, a rather large number of then-contemporary philosophers and mathematicians misunderstood Gödel's theorem. It is a very slippery result and demands a rigorous separation between theory and metatheory to properly conceptualize. This is especially difficult for platonists, but even formalists like Hilbert were blindsided by it.
 

 Discussion on answer by bdb484: Can a…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Kevin
May 23, 2024 02:00
@GregoryCurrie: "Even more clear" simply does not have the absolute, categorical meaning that you want it to have.
Kevin
May 23, 2024 02:00
@GregoryCurrie: The answer does not say "cannot possibly exist" or words to that effect. It is well understood in American constitutional law that the protections of the First Amendment are not absolute. Just because speech is "protected," it does not follow that no regulation may ever attach to that speech. This is why the actual malice standard exists, rather than simply having a blanket "no such thing as defamation" ruling.
Kevin
May 23, 2024 02:00
@GregoryCurrie: If failure to warn gives rise to any claim at all, it would be some kind of tort. Libel is a tort, and the First Amendment obviously applies to libel, so the claim that torts are somehow outside of the ambit of the First Amendment must fail.
 

 Discussion on answer by keshlam: Is i…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
Kevin
May 16, 2024 21:56
@trueCamelType: Depending on the nexus of your dispute with companies A and B, the matter with the check might be very important, or entirely irrelevant. Only your lawyer can tell you which it is.
 

 Discussion on answer by Hilmar: Repea…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Kevin
May 1, 2024 04:14
@MartinBean: Please do not tell me what is or is not a cultural norm in my own country. You are within your rights to disagree that it should be a cultural norm, but what is, is.
Kevin
May 1, 2024 04:14
@MartinBean: No, but it's definitely a cultural norm in the secure area of an airport in the USA. Rule of thumb: Never try to chitchat with the TSA or CBP officers. Be polite, be respectful, but no small talk.
 

 Discussion on question by Mitsuko: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Kevin
Mar 29, 2024 15:34
@LamarLatrell: A professor tried that... and then proceeded to believe the AI when it claimed to have written every essay for the entire class.
 

 Discussion on answer by Philipp: Why …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Kevin
Mar 18, 2024 10:03
@supercat: Yes, click on the link I gave you. It is specifically required by paragraph (a)(2)(A). As for the Constitution, it specifically empowers Congress to enact regulations of this nature, preempting any state laws to the contrary, in the Elections Clause.
Kevin
Mar 18, 2024 10:03
@supercat: Each state is required to ascertain its vote counts no later than six days before the electoral college election in December, and to file a public document containing such information, as provided in 3 USC 5. The question is whether a state might try to delay filing that certificate until the last minute, and thereby prevent the NPVIC states from filing their own certificates on time. Nobody is waiting until January 21, because that is blatantly illegal under federal law.
 

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Kevin
Mar 5, 2024 09:24
@T.E.D.: See also this series which talks about a lot of the factors that went into the incorrect media narrative in 2016.
 

 Discussion on answer by Barmar: The i…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Kevin
Mar 3, 2024 08:16
@NuclearHoagie: OP's premise is that we discover this low probability. If we can't do that, then the premise is misguided.
Kevin
Mar 3, 2024 08:16
Note also that, when people quote the size of the universe, they're generally talking about the observable universe - which is defined as everything we can see from Earth. But that's circular if you start reasoning about the likelihood of life arising on Earth. For a question like this one, you need to know the size of the entire universe, and it could be infinite for all we know.
 

 Discussion on answer by Kevin: 10-yea…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Kevin
Mar 2, 2024 12:20
@JonathanReez: They might word it something like "Have you ever had problems with UK immigration?" or in some other way. I find it hard to believe that they would refrain from asking some question along those lines, unless they literally asked no questions whatsoever (which I suppose could happen if they can already tell that there are no fuzzy matches for you in the database).