Just remember that with challenges like that, the main purpose is to guage your problem solving skills. You don’t necessarily have to complete the challenge in time, don’t necessarily have to make it work error free, etc. They want to see how you work through it all. Don’t get me wrong, if you ace the challenge, that’s great. But they mostly want to make sure you have the fundamentals and skills to comprehend the problem and work through to a solution.

So A) depending on the state or country’s age of consent and/or Romeo-juliet exceptions, their may or may not be anything legally disallowed by a 16 year old dating and being sexually active with a 19 year old or older.

B) It certainly doesn’t get more morally wrong in your situation where you’re already seeing someone 3 years older than you, as you get older. That difference only becomes less significant as you age.

C) If the age of consent or Romeo-juliet laws do not make a carve out for your situation, and you were dating and sexually active when they were 17 then likely your partner would’ve already been breaking the law before they were an adult. The difference now is that they’d be tried as an adult if they were to be charged.

D) As for the question, is there actually anything wrong with it. In the vast majority of cases, yes, there is something wrong about it, objectively. But also, it’s not necessarily a big problem in the end, sometimws. The problem comes down to three things. 1) Generally speaking, people your age lack real world insight into adulthood and adult relationships and struggle to make mature, rational, long-term-thinking decisions without the overwhelming power of novelty and emotion that comes with young love. I don’t say that to be insulting, just call it the wisdom of hindsight. We were all, to some degree, still kids at your age, and made stupid decisions that many of us regret. That is something an older partner should be cognizant of too, when they are receiving your consent to sexual acts, that your lack of experience means you may not fully appreciate what you are consenting to. 2) Even if you are mature, understand your decisions, and consent with the full understanding and appreciation of what that consent means, the relationship will almost necessarily have an unhealthy imbalance. They being adults typically means that they have more money, more freedom, and more control over the relationship. Truly healthy adult relationships are a partnership been coequal people. 16 year olds are still kids and typically still the responsibility of parents or guardians, still in school, still responsible only for a small fraction of their own care. And many at that age see older partners as a way to jump the line and soup ahead to becoming adults early, but it doesn’t work like that. 3) Even if it is legal, there is a stigma (and not a wholly unjustified one) that your partner will face that you will not. And if it’s not legal, there’s an even huger risk to your partner, losing their freedom, having their name in a sec offense registry, struggling to find homes or jobs, that again, you don’t face. That’s not fair and it’s simply not a good idea and it’s a risk to both partners.

But like I said, it’s not necessarily all that bad. It could be legal, mature, fully consentual, coequal, and neither partner suffers due to the relationship. And it can workout long term. But I do gotta warn you, that is definitely not the norm.

If a law enforcement officer wants to put a gps tracker on someone’s vehicle, he has to give probable cause and convince a judge to sign off on it. But suddenly we are giving all law enforcement the power to track every single person at all times, carte blanche, no probablu cause, no judge’s sign off, no nothing needed. Make it make sense.

That’s because, per Christian doctrine, Jesus created a new covenant with his sacrifice that fulfills and supersedes the old laws, and put a more spiritual mercy/love-driven interpretation on the previous rigid adherence aspects of Jewish laws and traditions before.

That’s why I asked. Shorting would involve betting the bubble will pop in a specific time frame and has no upper end to what I could lose if the bubble doesn’t pop in time. I was asking if there is any other way to bet against them that I didn’t know about. Something without that time frame and/or lower risk.

Yea, that’s what I figured.

I’m not a big market speculator guy. Does anyone know if there is a way to bet against AI, to make money when the AI bubble pops? Not shorting.

deleted by creator

There was a period of time where anything superhero was almost guaranteed to do well,” Ahuja said on Thursday at the Bank of America conference. “I think [the bar] for superhero movies, it was relatively low. In the mid-2010s pretty much all of them would do incredible business, but now even superhero movies have to have a degree of originality. They have to add something different. They have to have emotional connection. They have to be cultural events that can be marketed that way.”

Fuck me. I knew they never got it, that they were prepared to churn out low effort schlock for a quick buck, but I never thought I would see the day that they openly admitted that that was their mindset and lamenting the days when they could turn major profit off of garbage.

Gross

AI hasn’t really taken much, if any tech jobs so far. If anything demand for building and using AI has taken up a good share of the job market in tech.

The bigger issue, currently, is that experience is required even for “entry” level jobs because they simply won’t pay for people who are learning and gaining that experience. It’s also cheaper on the whole to pay someone overseas with experience to do the “grunt work”, for lack of a better word, that you would normally pay a newbie to do, and they’ll get it done faster and more reliably. You’ll have a domestic leadership team and a few senior engineers to steer projects and manage the communication and timezone issues, but very few, if any, fresh graduates.

It’s short term thinking that’s going to fuck the industry in a generation when all the old school guys die or retire, the senior engineers, tech leads, and engineering managers move up to fill their roles and you don’t have enough Jr engineers to become the seniors, leads and managers. They’ll be trying to manage entire teams from overseas, trying to replace people with AI, which will never be a true replacement, and they’ll suddenly see the value in hiring new graduates, but there won’t be enough by then because they made the major useless. The few that exist will probably make bank straight out of school, though, as companies become desperate for them.

There are things on the internet that are free and fine to use. VPNs are not one of them. They have ongoing hosting and bandwidth costs. They are not eating those costs without recouping them somehow.

Batman questions anyone and anything and has a plan for any eventuality, PARTICULARY those that pose a global scale threat. It’s nothing personal, it’s just reasonable precaution. That’s basically his true superpower. He also does trust Superman as a person, as a colleague and friend. I don’t think he ever considers there to be a true risk that Superman turns on humanity of his own will. However, Superman is susceptible to mind control, to magic, to unpredictable forms of kryptonite. And he is not the only living Kryptonian in existence either. It would be stupid not to plan for such threats.

Lex depending on the version, may or may not think that Superman actually poses a willful threat to humanity. But even if he also trusts that Superman is what he appears to be, a selfless hero that only wants to help people, he probably hates that idea even more. He usually doesn’t distrust Superman’s intent. He hates what it says about and does to human-kind, and by extension, himself. He things depending on an alien demigod will make humanity weak and complacent. He thinks that Superman holds the Earth back from reaching their potential. That it permanently neuters them from become Supermen themselves. So he makes it his mission to ruin Superman however he can. If he can kill him, good. Not a problem anymore. If he can publically discredit him, sow distrust across the globe, that’s good too, maybe better. People who distrust him won’t depend on him and may, in fact, fear him. As a result they are more likely to better themselves, their technology, their science, to rival and fight back against Superman.

TL:DR: Batman takes precautions. Lex hates and attempts to kill or sabotage. They’re not the same.

Stuff removed, stuff added, everything pulled tight. It’s like taxidermy but for still alive vanity-obsessed women, and it often looks like it too.

Yes, I did mean in the ideal sense, there is a functional purpose for raising the prices of foreign goods IF there is a domestic alternative you wish to boost or expand. But the mechanism for the benefit, IF(big if) there is one, is the increase in price. Tariff (ideally) equals targetted price increases. Saying tariffs might raise prices is like saying stabbing you might wound you. I might have a good reason for wounding you, I might not, but the wounding will happen as a direct consequences of my stabbing you, regardless.

Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting. That is what gerrymandering manipulates. You seem to think that the districts are voting blocks with equal say (1 vote each) in an election of a single seat (thus why you think Blue wins it all) but that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US (where the word comes from and the only place it is really used, btw). I dont know why you are quoting definitions at me like I dont understand the concept.

I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.

You specifically brought up that other people are saying that there are better systems, which is exactly what I was responding to and saying you were conflating with the “perfect” term used in the info graphic. So no, this is bull.

You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.

The abstract presentation in the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation. Gerrymandering is not a concept in a vacuum. It is a thing that happens and show a simplified version of it here demonstrates how manipulative it is in a digestible way. That is the point. It’s not a mathematical or logical axiom that exists purely in and of itself. It is a pretend situation meant to parallel a real life one and demonstrate a form of political manipulation.

The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.

They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don’t know why you’re are being so obtuse about this. It’s pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work

That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.

Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.

I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.

What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?

People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.

I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.

What do you mean “likely pushing up cost of electronics”. That is the literal point of a tariff, to push the prices up and make competing goods more appealing to consumers. The only way it doesnt raise prices is if importers just eat the cost, which they will almost certainly not do and, frankly, shouldn’t do.

Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party. Even if they WERE competing for one seat, then blue winning that seat would still be the correct outcome in this case, so even if your misunderstanding the hypothetical were accurate, I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.

Ok, so there is an election system like the one I criticized in the US, just not in every state.

Would you then say, that this is better than “winner takes all” and that “blue wins” is not perfect?

No… because in the example, it was NOT winner take all. Blue won the majority of districts. Red won the other districts. Nobody took all. I feel like you are trying really hard to misunderstand a VERY simple hypothetical example. Yes, winner take all states for electors is bullshit, but that is NOT what is happening in the example, for the love of god!