sadly, no. Anticheat Systems are designed to be paranoid as fuck. So even some readout of the hardware used that WINE handles a tad differently than Windows might trip it.

Because… why would mass murderers lie? That’d be naughty, they would never do that!

Depending on the vigor he goes about this with, the second one could move my couch as well.

We were glad when we got rid of’em. You took’em in, you deal with the fallout.

And from the time when German immigrants were… well… a lot more racist.

But they don’t want you to switch to “the new cool stuff”. They want you to switch to “the ad serving platform”

We’d have to ask the Supreme Court if that’s the case and the way those “super neutral judges” act… maybe we wait until after the election for that one.

That’s what happens around any toilet in a 2km radius when Taco Bell has a major sale.

If Donald is immune, isn’t Kamala immune if she orders the FBI to throw him in the brig if (please, don’t fuck this up! VOTE!) she becomes president?

Y’all do know that dismissing Ms. Lewinsky’s opinion and suggesting that her feelings about something she did and judged for herself might be wrong is rather patronizing, don’t you? She is the only person in this universe who can decide that. She has done so. End of.

Same in German.

Remember the outrage! A president who didn’t tell the truth about his sex life right away was unthinkable!

How are you getting change?

What good is cash gonna do if the networked cash register doesn’t open anymore?

Oh, you actually believed that story? Whoops. Sorry! It was actually me who ate your Cheetos and downed your Vodka.

It doesn’t. It will require you to reboot for every god-damned line of code that has changed.

Na, nothing. Did an update today. Nothing bad happened at al, Because why would it?

standing on the shoulders of giants.

Many of the machines in question will have safe mode walled off for security reasons anyway.

I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently? Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from “algorithm is to blame for deaths” into “algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases”, which of course it can’t…