Your statistical math only makes sense if the individuals you spoke to were uniformly sampled from China’s population. I’m willing to bet they weren’tsmf that there may be a sampling bias here. May I ask in what circumstances you heard these n=5 opinions?

It may not have the same ring to it but if you think about it for more than two seconds you may realize that it has the same meaning :-)

Would you like to at least engage with the discourse a bit more, eg explain why the reason I have mentioned and other possible reasons are not good to you? Otherwise you’re not adding much to the conversation.

Beyond Need has indeed had sausages for quite awhile now.

Hmm, why have you not responded to the substantive reasoning for the law? As a self-professed freedom advocate, well, that’s obviously a lie so do you actually have something of value to add or are you just trolling?

AlphaFold’s success seems to be largely linked to its use of attention-based architecture, similar to GPT, i.e. the architecture used by LLMs. Beyond that, they are both building on work in machine learning and statistics, so I don’t think they are nearly as independent as you are making out.

Despite all the downvotes, I think it’s a reasonable enough question. It happens to have a very reasonable answer though.

First of all, your concern is largely addressed, since immigration control can still access law enforcement databases if they have a warrant.

As for why this law exists at all, well it’s actually to the benefit of law enforcement: the idea is that immigrant communities are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement if they aren’t scared that they will be the target of immigration control. This is all the more practical now, when ICE has degraded into a largely lawless and authoritarian organization, since you can imagine most immigrants wouldn’t want to say a word to any police officer unless they at least have the protections of the 2017 TRUST act in place.

Now, what I’m a bit confused about is why you are so up-in-arms about the existence of this law instead of the violation of this law. Surely if you are so law-abiding as you make out to be in your comments, you should be shouting for legal action against the police officers involved in breaking the law.

Lol dude I am also not arguing about the main point, my contention is that you’re being uppity with phrasing when you are in fact entirely wrong. If you’re gonna be a grammar Nazi you have to at least be correct.

edit: ah nevermind I understand from your most recent comment that you’re just trolling

No, we are taking about violence in a region, which can have many causes and origins. Violence in the region has stemmed from a combination of religion and foreign interference (and presumably many other things). If this isn’t what your claim addresses, then your claim is irrelevant to this conversation.

Lol what are you talking about? Many things can have a stem, such as a plant, which is not the same as the stem itself. According to all major dictionaries, stem can mean the main trunk of a plant, but it can also mean other certain plant part providing support. So your claim doesn’t hold.

Some definitions include the word “main”… and many definitions don’t. So actually I don’t see anything necessarily indicating that there can only be one stem.

Of course it can—why do you think something can’t have multiple stems? No one said that it stems exclusively from one thing.

It’s an interesting story, I definitely appreciate learning about this… and one which is very specific to Oklahoma, and doesn’t reveal all that much (nor would I say it’s necessary to hear to understand the crux) of Americanism.

Have you considered that we may need to reform.aspects of representative democracy in order to effectively address climate change?