And sometimes it doesn’t actually remove the snow.

Well, seems like he learned his lesson. Would have been better if he had learned it before his bad advice got children killed, but at least he learned instead of doubling down.

Yes, it’s so far fetched that Anon expects the cops to be called.

Yeah but then if they pass your id and agree to the bribery they’ll give you the 100$? It’s the wrong way around to be bribery.

The bet is that Anon is 24, but if the id says they’re 21, then they’re of drinking age, but still lose the bet, so the clerk gets the money. ID is passed, and money is paid.

See my reply to Krafty Kactus.

It could be constructed as an attempt at bribery. You see, when you bribe somebody, you can’t just go up to them, and tell them “Here’s a hundred bucks, look the other way”. Because, what if you’re an undercover cop? You need to offer the money in a way that offers plausible deniability. So, the next step could be to show a poorly counterfeited id that says you’re only 21, with the implied subtext being, “I’m giving you 100$, but in exchange you don’t look too closely at my false id”. Of course, there’s always a risk that the person you’re trying to bribe doesn’t catch on.

Assaultin/Killing your opponent is an automatic loss.

It isn’t sustainable. No clerk will take the bet more than once. Also, the clerk doesn’t have to take the bet to interpret it as bribery and call the cops on you. In addition, there’s the risk of the clerk simply not honoring the bet.

Sort of yes, but also no. High tier LLM’s are all offered well below cost. So if the costs were to go up, a lot of current users would not be able to afford to run AI agents anymore.

You can counter a wild draw 4 by also playing one, in which case the next player has to draw 8 cards. So if the POV character is to move, Osaka having a wild draw 4 for would turn what’s a sure victory for the POV character into certain defeat.

(Of course, I can’t actually know what Osaka has on her hand. I just figured her having a wild draw 4 would be funny in this situation)

You win the moment you discard your last card. So the POV character plays +4, she counters with +4 and wins.

Her last card is also a wild draw 4.

Mistaking the map for the territory. The argument isn’t that bitcoin is bad because it’s used to buy drugs, it’s bad because the network would choke if it even had to handle the economic activity of a moderately sized town.

“Accidentally” CC your reply to the mailing list with everybody in it.

I though the idea was to deface the post to show that you disagree with it.

Your[sic] not discussing anything honestly, your[sic] just derailing and trolling which is PR and Marketing[sic] firms 101 for comment farms and paid bots and it just so HAPPENS your[sic] following that pattern too[sic]. Must be a coincidence there as well.

Do I need to remind you that the title of this thread mentions the Rothschilds by name?

What did you have mind?

Between the new banking regulations, shell companies, trusts and attorney client privilege they can hide their true wealth and thats how the mega rich do that. Away of the eyes of the common persons ability to even know what’s up

So, basically, you don’t have any evidence. Weird how you keep obsessing about them. Why do they scare you so much?

Why do you even care enough to defend them right now?

You do realize that I’m calling them has-beens.

They are at the center of, or at least concerningly involved with, every major social upset in my country for the last 200 years.

Let me guess, no evidence for any of this?

Never heard anyone defend anyones honor like this without a heck of a reason.

I spent maybe 10 minutes on all my replies in this thread, total. Kinda reflects poorly on you that you consider this a monumental effort.

So let’s hear it or fuck off with what appears to be, at this point, disingenuous and half-assed commentary to derail the conversation away from that whole concept here

Talking about the Rothschilds in a discussion about the Rothschilds is “derailing”, apparently. Weird assessment.

I figure a ban of targeted advertisement would look like “The ads are only allowed to change once a day, and everybody during said day sees the same ads”. Whereas currently, each time you load a website, there’s an impromptu auction to sell the ad spots. (Advertisers don’t actually have to pay until you click their ad). So there would be less incentive to keep the user constantly engaged, as it would be enough if the user just visits regularly.

I’ve been trying to remember the name of this number. Thanks.