Then the output would be garabage

Anyways, I thought this was the election2020 channel. Thats why I came here. What did I find a discussion about artificial intelligence?

@Autumn_Katrina, you just advanced to level 1!

Why did I find*

@RobertGrulerEsq Having a friendly debate with a fellow non-lawyer friend about the cases being brought up and their interpretation of the law. A lot of the state laws say 'shall' which I looked up in a legal dictionary to essentially mean 'must'. My friend is involved in a lot of contract law and feels that 'shall' can be equally interpreted as 'may'. In terms of these state laws regarding elections, how would you interpret 'shall'?

https://www.psfc.mit.edu/news/2020/using-machine-learning-to-control-plasma-stability-in-fusion-experiments

@Autumn_Katrina what is your take on the election?

Shall, in any context I've ever seen it, legal or otherwise, is always a directive ... it essentially means "must". The only diference is, must is driven by a force to happen (if I heat the ice it must melt), where as shall is directed by command (you shall pay for the good you tak form the store)...there is no "may" in either of these.

@busillis I'm aware of the research. I was an IT technician for a little over 10 years before I quite Hewlett-Packard; and I'm the same Autumn who wrote Katja the Robot (the closest thing I could get to "artificial intelligence" -- I still think I could have gotten a lot closer if a company had taken me seriously in 2007 and given me some money)

@Autumn_Katrina the election result horses been beaten badly

Well, I think we all know Trump was who the actual, living, honest, and legally eledgable people voted for mostly.

@Autumn_Katrina cool.

The question is, can it be proven

@Autumn_Katrina hmm t

@Autumn_Katrina do tell

Even if it can, can it be proven in time

Not looking good

And, ultimately, will the legislaters act accordingly

The time caveat

According to @TaLoN132 Here's how you can pass any unconstitutional law.

1) Wait until you have a favorable Supreme Court
2) Exclude any other Court from ruling on it, And ensure only the Supreme Court can rule on it
3) Set a time limit of 180 days to when you can challenge it's constitutionality, and then it goes into effect
4) When nobody challenges it because you have a favorable supreme court, if later, somebody challenges it, cite that they didn't challenge it during the 180 days.

Ultimately, the legislaters can slate electoral college votes for Steve Courtney from Crypto Crew University if they thought it was a good idea, and the congress could approve thpose if they agreed. So, in the end, it's the legislaters who need to be convince that they should,

Latches

So Rudy’s argument is where this all going all along

Fun with infernos.

Wow no just watched it and posted to facebook let's see if they censor this the lady is simply showing what you can do!!

The algos disapprove of thinking outside of sanction narratives.

I'm not sure what Rudy's exact argument is. I never liked the guy from back when he tried to tell me 9/11 was caused by terrorists. But, if Donald Trump hired him, and Donald Trump said trust him, I'm only counting his as a good guy because I trust Donald J. Trump. I just wish heTrump had gotten this far in 2000 with the Reform Party when he wrote the book that got me interested in politics "The America We Deserve". As for my answer, that's based on The Constitution.

@Autumn_Katrina, you just advanced to level 2!

Rudy's exact argument ?

@Autumn_Katrina He’s been presenting directly to state legislature at hearings

I was just pointing out that they provided more justification they made in their Response. It wasn't my case. I'm just a computer nerd from CA.

That's a very good question, additionally I'd like to know what the end game is.

I trust Donald J Trump... never trust a charlatan

Is it to drum up media attention so the populace will force the state representatives to pick Republican electors?

@TaLoN132 is famous

These people are not stupid people, the legal team has to know their witnesses come across as ....

I'm glad someone else brought up the 911 Giuliani connection, as the thoughts you have expressed are very much the thoughts that I have in this regard.

@DrSammyD Act 77 gave standing to all for 6 months to challenge Act 77. After the Primaries any injured party could have sued Act 77 to remove it for November.

So you can sleep a little better at night... You might want to consider that all buildings in NY might be equipped with mechanisms that will prevent a disaster in one building from taking down the whole skyline. It probably is true in every city. Once the damage from the terrorist attack appeared to jeopardize the stability of the structure, they had to bring it down safely in order to protect the nearby buildings. This is why it appears to come down as if demolished professional... It is also the reason why they will allow conspiracy theories to permeate, because admitting that all city buildings could be brought down at any time is too dangerous to announce to the world.

Cool. So any unconstitutional act can be created by giving standing to everybody to sue for X time period. Glad you think that. I think that's retarded