DonbunEf7

I have a hard time believing Zuckerberg would purposely exclude himself from the conversation.

You know what's bizarre to me? Most US states are either one party consent or 2 party consent states. Meaning to record a conversation, at least one party must consent to the conversation being recorded.

So how does this not apply at all to private conversations online?

Windows still has the following annoyances 1. Advertisements for One Drive storage in windows explorer. 2. Advertisements for Candy Crush and other games in start menu. 3. Advertisements and nag prompts to try Edge browser when you attempt to download chrome or switch your default browser. 4. Collects lots of telemetry. Yes, most of the above issues can be solved by digging into the settings and turning them off but they shouldn't exist in the first place.

Talk about discrimination against non-students. Like students are some kind of special snowflakes. I'm going to sue them for this breach of my rights.

May I say that the whole message seems forced?

A sort of "shape up or ship out" from the Linux Foundation management.

Especially with the concurrent switch to the new, more community acceptable code of conduct.

Will Linux have a new maintainer in a few weeks?

...right, because that works

- move technical skills and certifications to the bottom

- limit projects to top 3 relevant to job

- not a fan of about/technical quote part, but that's up to you. only comment about that is that it takes more than half the first page.

- "multiple startups": this tells me absolutely, nothing.

- it took me about 5 minutes to read your resume, and my conclusion is that you have 1 year experience as a software engineer. intern probably since it was 6 months. probably not accurate, but that's how it reads

- how come you have like 10 projects, but not a single one was from your "freelance developer" time?

- cto @softzen: skills->"anything", that's cute, but means nothing

Hi Carl, it's me, mathematics. I'm sure you recall that Turing machines (TMs) can be enumerated. ActorScript programs can also be enumerated, as can Direct Logic statements. I'm sure that you also have no problem with the basic concept of arithmetic encoding, nor with diagonalization widgets.

So, I'd like you to demonstrate that Direct Logic is, in fact, strictly more powerful than TMs, by constructing a DL program which cannot be computed by any TM.

Alternatively, I'd like you to prove the claim, "In Direct Logic, categorical theories of the Natural Numbers, Real Numbers, Ordinal Numbers, Set Theory, the Lambda Calculus, and Actors are inferentially decidable, meaning that every true proposition is provable and every proposition is either provable or disprovable," from your abstract. Specifically, I'd like you to construct the Direct Logic program which proves or disproves any given theorem. If that is too difficult, it will suffice to demonstrate a use of Direct Logic to answer a tough question about numbers; I humbly invite you to consider Goldbach's conjecture.

Thanks and good luck.

This is because the one-liner is actually (sorry SSC) a valid logical template, relying on assumptions about rule of law to draw a deductive inference. We can see the template itself:

    "When X is illegal to possess under some jurisdiction's law, then the residents of that jurisdiction will be criminalized by their possession of X, and thus the only possessors of X in the jurisdiction will be criminals."

SSC probably doesn't like this one because it's definitional. People like to use "criminal" is a qualitative label for people who they feel have broken the law, but it is in fact definable as a quantitative label for people who have committed acts which are unacceptable as a fact of law.