There’s also https://lmstudio.ai/
- 0 Posts
- 78 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
0·10 months agoYou have to be careful when looking at crosstabs. 600 is the total sample size. How many of those were black?
The most logical explanation is (and always has been) a SS agent accidentally scratched his ear while he kept trying to stand up.
There’s blood on his hand right after he touches his ear, before he even ducks down
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1e2q931/the_photograph_sequence_of_the_bullet_that_hit/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html
0·11 months agoDozens of us did! 😁
Do they say what phone it was?
Lots of other websites have already copied the “pay or consent” ad model
The only evidence to overturn the election points to republicans
Then you are totally locked in with Apple devices and cannot switch to Android and take your passkeys with you
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), anddon’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.
LM741 opamp chips