I got that advice as well – the explanation given to me was that it’s almost always used incorrectly, so just be safe and don’t. However, I like the way it makes writing more closely resemble natural speech; we usually talk in conjoined clauses rather than complete sentences.

I’ve been trying to get the semicolon to take off; haven’t had much luck though.

I don’t have experience with it personally, only heard about it from a possibility perspective – apparently prosecutors do a very thorough job screening jurors to make sure that never happens. Just knowing about jury nullification can get you dismissed. I don’t think you’re off the mark with that read, but where I think it comes back from kangaroo court and sov cit land is all jurors have to agree, even one objection to a nullification would stop it; if twelve strangers all agree, there’s probably some merit to it. But, certainly can be abused in the wrong hands.

Right, that’s my point – jury nullification is the mechanism by which juries find that a crime was committed by the letter of the law but the defendent is not guilty.

This is exactly what jury nullification is for

I think you’ve generalized a bit too much. The gender-swapped format was not created for this exact meme, it’s just a jovial commentary on male stereotypes women find unappealing. In this case, the joke isn’t that she saw a stack of random games, they’re all FIFA – did you maybe not notice that? The annoying male FIFA player is a pretty well-established meme at this point.

I might agree if the last single-sentence summary wasn’t there – that’s as ELI5 as it gets, I’d say.

ELI5 is not a literal request for an explanation a five year-old would understand; briefly consider how that would sound – useless, right? It’s a hyperbolic way of asking for a thorough, well-written explanation of a concept for someone who lacks the understanding to start asking the right questions or seek information on their own. There’s your ELI5 ELI5.

A fellow opposum!

Value-adders.

Uppies for all of you!

Put your foot down everywhere then – it’s a fallacy to think that it’s not worth it to resist data harvesting because it already gets collected “everywhere” anyway, take one step at a time to make it harder and harder. Opting out of this is just one step.

Isn’t reducing the size of the dataset worth it? I’d rather them have a picture from three years ago than a new scan every month or two.

It’s not such a binary thing as winning or losing, it’s a constantly shifting process. The only way to actually lose is by giving up – instead, consider it making it as hard as possible for your privacy to be infringed upon. Sometimes it’s more inconvenient, but what makes us such a farmable populace is our reluctance to be inconvenienced. Be good at being uncomfortable.

I refused, it went fine. I had to repeat myself because it was unexpected and dudebro wasn’t prepared, and they had to turn on the other machine and wait for it to start up, but it only delayed me like 2 minutes. The more people ask, the easier it gets.

If you put someone on a wall hook, would they then have been hung? Likewise if I suspend my painting with a noose, has the painting been hanged?

I fucking love beans

What would be extremely rock and roll-- punk rock, even – is donating all of the proceeds from that show to pro-union efforts.

#DonateItDave, or something

I’m here to support.

Count #1: Guilty

Count #2: Guilty

Count #3: Guilty

Count #4: Guilty

Count #5: Guilty

Count #6: Guilty

Count #7: Guilty

Count #8: Guilty

Count #9: Guilty

Count #10: Guilty

Count #11: Guilty

Count #12: Guilty

Count #13: Guilty

Count #14: Guilty

Count #15: Guilty

Count #16: Guilty

Count #17: Guilty

Count #18: Guilty

Count #19: Guilty

Count #20: Guilty

Count #21: Guilty

Count #22: Guilty

Count #23: Guilty

Count #24: Guilty

Count #25: Guilty

Count #26: Guilty

Count #27: Guilty

Count #28: Guilty

Count #29: Guilty

Count #30: Guilty

Count #31: Guilty

Count #32: Guilty

Count #33: Guilty

Count #34: Guilty

Thanks for the response! It sounds like you had access to a higher quality system than the worst, to be sure. Based on your comments I feel that you’re projecting the confidence in that system onto the broader topic of facial recognition in general; you’re looking at a good example and people here are (perhaps cynically) pointing at the worst ones. Can you offer any perspective from your career experience that might bridge the gap? Why shouldn’t we treat all facial recognition implementations as unacceptable if only the best – and presumably most expensive – ones are?

A rhetorical question aside from that: is determining one’s identity an application where anything below the unachievable success rate of 100% is acceptable?