They can, by putting what they just "learned" into the context window. Claude Code does this without (my) prompting from time to time, adding to its CLAUDE.md things that it has learned about the project or my preferences. Currently this is limited to literally writing it down, but as context windows grow and models continue training on their own usage, it's not clear to me how that will significantly differ from an ability to "learn information they currently do not have".
Most serious banking apps and financial services are still written in Java, it hasn't displaced much of anything. Big data is a relatively 'new' fad that is already becoming less and less relevant.
This is actually a really weird mistake. It's a completely different spelling mistake than in reality, and I wonder if it's an artifact of polishing the post with AI that "corrected" something that was right (or only a vague bullet point) in the original?
(ETA: Another one: referring to "hi good morning" in the images of texts when it's actually "hi <name> good evening").
They mention spacex rideshare by name in the article but neglected to link to it: https://www.spacex.com/rideshare advertises really cheap delivery... the lowest price they brag about is "$350k for 50kg to SSO with additional mass at $7k/kg"
That's why those characters exist, but not why Windows uses both: Unix already used LF only, and the Apple II (and Mac, for a while) used only CR. The choice to use both was, as far as I know, Gary Kildall's, in CP/M, and various DOSes including MS-DOS inherited that decision without much examination.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is typically not included in protected speech. Whether you think that's happening here will depend mostly on what side you take, I suspect.
“ If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both”
Trump’s speech does not meet that standard. It lacked coordination, targeting, or intent to physically interfere. The Minnesota case is different because it includes coordinated dispatch, targeting of ICE activity, and sharing de-arrest material with the stated intent to impede operations. That coordination and intent is the legal difference.
You keep commenting to cite this statute when you clearly have not actually read what it says. Peaceful protest is explicitly protected by the first amendment.
The statute defines a crime that is distinguishable from peaceful protest/1A. You are free to interpret that however you like in relation to what is occurring.
We are referring to peaceful protest and assembly, which are protected rights, not crimes. You can have a huge group chat or take out a huge billboard and announce your protest. There's no crime to discuss here.
This refers to physical impediments. Spreading legal information is not an impediment, it is free speech. If all info could be interpreted as impediments to federal officers then phones, the internet, the human voice, etc would be illegal
No, they are organizing legally, of course there will be bad actors, but blocking an agent out of bad faith is certainly less of a crime than a bad faith ICE agent killing someone for their assumptions
We already know that "doxxing" on its own is not a crime, and moreover that [non-undercover] federal agents are not entitled to keep their identities secret.
We also know that legal observation and making noise does not constitute interference.
So those may be their stated reasons, but they will not hold up in court.
reply