So make it allowed that the insurance is tied to the gun. You buy a lifetime policy for that serial number, provide payment, and you're done. Payment can be provided anonymously at a window in cash, if that's your thing.
If you want discounts because you live in a low-crime area, have a gun safe, have many guns, etc. then obviously the storage location for the weapon needs to be declared to the insurance company.
The scammer will show up to a bar in Bucharest. They are probably not even legally allowed in the U.S.
None of this scam requires the scammer to be in the U.S.
Even the New York driver's license, even if it is real, could be muled. More likely it is just a photoshop.
And even if they do show up to the meet, what are you going to do? Call the police? Will they even show up quickly? When they do, whose photo ID will the believe? Seems like a good way to spend a night at the station while the police sort some things out.
What is it about mobile phone chipsets that makes the unsuitable for a TV stick or STB?
Is it that there is special TV-specific hardware like tuners, HW accelerated audio and video decoders, and PQ/AQ accelerators?
Apple has adapter their A15 chipsets for use in the Apple TV, so it seems possible. But obviously the Apple TV products don't have tuners, aren't driving a display natively, and probably don't have enough I/O interfaces to add all the extra hardware you'd need to embed it in a panel or STB.
It's a good question and I'm not actually sure as I'm not a hardware guy, just a user who's looked into these productz. So far, the popular Android TV set-top boxes (or sticks) I've seen use SoCs that seem dedicated to set-top applications. It may that mobile phone chipsets have different integration to support cellular modems and air interfaces.
There are some boxes which use use Android instead of Android TV but these tend to require using versions of the streaming apps made for mobile phones. I haven't really looked into these as they tend not to work well with remote controls so I haven't been interested.
Nice. I love the sense of humor of the motivational quotes. Immediately after inscribing a circle in a square: "You can't fit a round peg into a square hole. (American proverb)"
It's very important to not have leading questions. Don't ask it to confirm something; ask it to outline the possibilities and the pros and cons or argument for or against each possibility.
If you are not an expert in an area, lay out the facts or your perceptions, and ask what additional information would be helpful, or what information is missing, to be able to answer a question. Then answer those questions, ask if there's now more questions, etc. Once there are no additional questions, then you can ask for the answer. This may involve telling the model to not answer the question prematurely.
Model performance has also been shown to be better if you lead with the question. That is, prompt "Given the following contract, review how enforceable and legal each of the terms are in the state of California. <contract>", not "<contract> How enforceable...".
Ask the model for what the experts are saying about the topic. What does the data show? What data supports or refutes a claim? What are the current areas of controversy or gaps in research? Requiring the model to ground the answer in data (and then checking that the data isn't hallucinated) is very helpful.
Have the model play the Devil's advocate. If you are a landlord, ask the question from the tenant's perspective. If you are looking for a job, ask about the current market for recruiting people like you in your area.
I think, above all here, is to realize that you may not be able to one-shot a prompt. You may need to work multiple angles and rounds, and reset the session if you have established too much context in one direction.
> Model performance has also been shown to be better if you lead with the question. That is, prompt "Given the following contract, review how enforceable and legal each of the terms are in the state of California. <contract>", not "<contract> How enforceable...".
Confused here. You attach the contract. So it’s not a case of leading with the question. The contract is presented in the chat, you ask the question.
LLMs are necessarily linear. If you paste the contract first, the attention mechanism of the model can still process the contract, but only generically. It pays attention to the key points of the contract. If you ask the question first, the attention part of the model is already primed. It will now read the contract paying more attention to the parts that are relevant to the question.
If I ask you to read Moby Dick and then ask you to critique the author's use of weather as a setting, that's a bit more difficult than if I ask you to to critique that aspect before asking you to read the book.
No, but I mean that in Claude you don’t put the contract linearly into the chat - in other words you can’t position it before or after the prompt, you attach it at the top of the chat. Are you saying you would prompt saying “please examine the contract I will provide in the next message, here is what I want you to do <instruction>”
Gotcha, thanks for explaining. It’s interesting because there are times I say “look at his document and do this” but forget to attach the doc. I’ve always had the sense Claude is better “prepped” when it anticipates he document coming. Sometimes I’ve said “in the next message I’m going to give you a document, here is what I want you to do, if there’s anything you are unclear in before we begin ask me questions”. This seems to bring better results, but I’ve not done any sort of robust test.
> Have the model play the Devil's advocate.
i've tried this sometimes. only issue being dumb me skipping to add similar phrasing every time i open claude or gemini
have you found a way to consistently auto-nudging the model by default?
I don't have copy-paste prompts. If I need it to argue from another perspective, I just ask for that perspective in a new session, ideally arguing both sides in temporary sessions so that the context of any other session doesn't affect it.
I am also quite good at playing the devil's advocate myself. If you have some expertise, you can just come up with what I consider to be a good counterargument, and ask for an attack or defense of that argument. You can try the prompt below in your favorite thinking model and see what it says. Obviously, this is more work than some other methods.
---
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the following line of argumentation?
Some proponents of climate-change denialism have taken a new tact: pointing out that there is a lack of practical solutions that meaningfully address the change in climate, especially given the political and social systems available.
To the extent that climate mitigations are expensive, they will tend to be politically unpopular in democracies, and economically destabilizing in dictatorships. Unilateral adoption of painful solutions weakens a country's relative position among nations; it wouldn't do for, say, China to harm itself economically while the rest of the world enjoys cheap energy.
We also have a gerontocracy in most countries; the people in power have no personal stake in the problems 50 years from now, and even as the effects of climate change start to become a problem, those in power are best positioned to be personally insulated.
And while there are solutions like solar power that are capital intensive but pay for themselves over time, the sum total of these net positive solutions doesn't amount to a meaningful dent in the problem, nor do we need policies or willpower to support "no-brainer" solutions that pay for themselves.
The conclusion is that negative effects of climate change are "baked in" by the lack of a political system ("benevolent" dictatorship) that could force the necessary and painful changes required, hence the entire discussion of climate change, while interesting, is partly moot.
Do these people have a point? Is there evidence that we can build an effective solution from non-painful measures? Why would it matter to those in power today, what the global average temperature in 2100 is?
Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.
The ruling makes it very clear that core constitutional powers have conclusive and preclusive (absolute) immunity.
Other official acts have presumptive immunity.
In all cases, the motive is above question. If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her. He doesn't even need to claim that she's a spy. It can never be questioned in court. He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.
In all cases, the official acts are explicitly not admissible as evidence. Using the example above, the District of Columbia can try to prosecute for murder, but is unable to introduce the fact of the order as evidence. If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.
> Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.
Incorrect. The commander in chief, same as all military officers, has the authority to issue lawful orders to the chain of command below him. He does not have the authority to issue unlawful orders, and if he does, his subordinates have the legal obligation to disobey them. The president does not have constitutional power to order arbitrary violence.
> If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her
No he can't because this is against the law, and it is therefore not a presidential power. The president has no constitutional authority to order agencies to violate the law.
> He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.
This is, unfortunately, true. But it has been true as long as the US has existed.
> If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.
This is true, but the act of taking the bribe is not an exercise of presidential power so he can be charged with accepting a bribe. This is not new to the recent SC decision.
This decision says that he can issue unlawful orders, and there's nothing the court can do about it. He's immune. You don't need immunity for lawful acts. The very best you could argue is that this prevents prosecution for "gray area" acts that may or may not be lawful. But this decision essentially says that all of those "gray areas" are effectively lawful.
Decide that the protesters in Minnesota are an insurrection? Maybe they start turning up with long guns, like countless previous protestors? Order the troops to fire. It's up to them if they do or don't, but it's guaranteed if they don't, they'll be in courts martial for disobeying the order. The meeting minutes, the reports, what was known and when it was known, Trump's motive: all of them don't matter at all. The official records are inadmissible, his motive is unquestionable, and he is absolutely immune for his orders as commander-in-chief. He can pardon everyone and make them federally immune as well. Only state courts can do anything, far after the fact.
Do you think immunity is for lawful things? Why on earth are you arguing that unlawful acts are not covered by immunity? What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?
That ruling[1] is even worse than rubber stamping. It's saying that no stamp is needed at all.
> It seems hard to call that an example of rubber stamping for an administration that did not exist yet.
The Trump administration absolutely did exist, both in the past and the present (waiting in the wings) in July 2024 when the ruling was issued.
While it's true that all past and future presidents are affected by the ruling, there's exactly one former president and presidential candidate at that time that was likely to face criminal charges for actions taken while in office, in either first or second terms.
It's a bit much to claim that the ruling doesn't have at least the appearance of benefiting Trump exclusively, especially given the timing. The ruling caused many of Trump's trials to be delayed to be effectively concurrent with the 2024 election.
We went 235 years without clarifying that presidents had presumptive immunity; all previous presidents (even Trump) acted under the presumption that prosecution for official acts might be unlikely but was possible.
I may be a bit odd, but I store lithium ion battery containing electronics in the vegetable drawer in the fridge. You lose 20% of capacity in a year if you have 100% state of charge but only 6% loss of capacity at refrigerator temperatures. So tool batteries, small electronics and whatever else that isn't used weekly gets put in.
I also try to charge fully only just before use (and only if I need 100%), and store at partial charge. If I am charging for storage, I just set a 30 minute timer. Since 1C charging is the most common, 30 minutes at 1C will be about 50% state of charge from empty, which is useful for items with no state of charge indicator.
I use AlDente[1] on my Apple laptops, and the 80% charge feature on my Pixel phone. My bedside phone charger is a slow charger.
Maybe I'm doing too much to manage my batteries, but I also haven't needed to retire anything for having a bad battery in many years, nor had items with dwindling capacity.
>You lose 20% of capacity in a year if you have 100% state of charge but only 6% loss of capacity at refrigerator temperatures.
Source? The common figure for smartphone batteries is "at least 80% capacity after 2 years", and that presumably includes cycles, not just leaving it charged.
From the article, Table 3: 100% SoC @ 25°C leaves only 80% of the original capacity after a year.
It's easy to look at that table and think that it's remaining charge after a year; it's not. It's lost capacity.
This is known in the industry as "calendar aging". So far as I know, stockpiles of lithium ion batteries are stored at a relatively low state of charge and in a cold environment for this reason among others. It's common to order a laptop battery or similar and get a unit that was manufactured a year back. It would be terrible to get a new battery that already had diminished capacity, which is what would happen if you stored them in a non-conditioned warehouse in a hot climate.
Have you ever measured your battery voltages over time storing it this way? Is that 6% capacity loss theoretical or measured data? I'm intrigued. This sounds crazy, but it should technically be fundamentally sound.
Maybe I just expect too much battery life, but I find that I get quite low or even run out when I limit charging to 80%.
My feeling is that the coulomb counting on the Pixel 8 Pro is just not very accurate, so the phone thinks it's at 80%, but is really at 60% or 40%.
I still use the feature, but now I have to top up during the day every so often. I suppose rationally I should just charge to 100% rather than take a medicine that causes the same side effect as the disease its meant to treat, but I'm not that rational.
If you want discounts because you live in a low-crime area, have a gun safe, have many guns, etc. then obviously the storage location for the weapon needs to be declared to the insurance company.
reply