I take your point. :)

It's worth mentioning in my opinion though, because if someone were to say "we should ban chemicals" it'd be worthwhile to point out what that actually means.

I don't actually think the broadness of the category is intentionally abused, it's just that it's an incredibly common thing to remove anything from the AI category that's explicable.

I feel slightly more hanlons razor about it since there's people in my city talking about and petitioning on the popular notion of banning all data centers from the state, and how it would be awful if s data center came here. I know what they mean, but it's not what they're trying to get the law to do, and our city already has six data centers I know of off the top of my head. The language drift is fine, but when it starts to conflate with policy it's another issue.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/leadership/mozillas-next-chapter-anthony-enzor-demeo-new-ceo/

The root of the current discussion.

A conservative guess would be around 60 people.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describecomponents.cgi

You can click around and see the bug reports they're working on. There are a few, to say the least.

https://www.firefox.com/en-US/releases/

This is a way to see what's in each release. The ones on the left are major releases and tend to have bigger features, and the others tend to be bug fixes.

Web browsers start with core functionality that's very complex. Then you tack on that they're being used for things like banking, and managing the critical details of people's lives. That means security galore, which is hard and constant. Then you have ad people, who are also something that's hard to defend against.
Then there's the constant flood of new features you have to implement to keep up with Google.

Chrome has 1,000 to 4,000 people working on it. Mozzila employs about 700 to work on firefox, with maybe 1,000 additional open source developers.

My initial guess was very wrong.

It's less a vague umbrella and more an academic category. It just feels odd to call it vague in the same way you wouldn't call "chemistry" vague, despite it having applications ranging from hand soap to toxic waste.

Yeah, ocr is a type of AI. The big advantage of modern techniques is that it can factor in context a bit better. It's the same principle but a different mechanism for how you know a red hexagon with S__P on it says stop, even if the sign is dented, a letter fully fell off, it's raining and dark.

It also means it's sometimes wildly inaccurate, like in cases where it's just so much more likely that it said something else. Like how on a bright sunny day, with perfect clarity, and a crisp new sign with extra good visuals, you'll hit the breaks for a sign that's a red hexagon that says §¥¢¶. It's just very unlikely that that would coincidentally be on a red hexagon near the road, so it's more likely you saw wrong and it was actually the normal thing.

That's not them being authoritative for the information, that's them being a consumer of the information. There's a difference.

A store needs to see my drivers license to sell me alcohol. That doesn't mean that the receipt is proof I'm allowed to drive. If I get pulled over I can't give it to a cop to prove I have a license because the store isn't an authoritative source for that information, despite having an integration with the state I'd verification service.

This is just how paperwork works. You can search for this information yourself if you don't believe me. A social security name change is not proof of citizenship.

And you're missing the point that other people are making: the SSA is not responsible for knowing your citizenship status, and so documents from them don't establish citizenship.

That they know it has nothing to do with anything. They're not an authoritative source, so they can't be used for that purpose.
You're thinking like it's an evidentiary chain. A requires B, therefore proof of A implies B.
It's not though: it's a list of valid documents from a list of valid sources.

And all that's moot because you can get an SSA name change or a real id without meeting the criteria to vote, so even if it was a proof A wouldn't imply B.

Fire stations are everywhere, staffed by trustworthy people, who inevitably also have medical training. Additionally they aren't scary like the police are.
They're the people you call if you need help.

You can surrender an infant at a hospital too, as well as a police station, but fire stations are just more frequent.

That's still not proof of citizenship. The SSA is not in charge of tracking citizenship, so a document from them doesn't work for that purpose.

As you said yourself, non-citizens can get social security cards. Changing your name in that circumstance is hardly proof of citizenship.

And also the source of the term "grandfathered in".

The law was typically along the lines of "literacy test or your grandfather could vote".

But that's not proof of citizenship, which is what the bill requires.

They have enough money that money doesn't matter. Making people for whom money does matter have less gives them more power.

They don't want to be rich in a developed capitalist country, they want to be lords in a feudal society. The average quality of life plummeting doesn't matter as long as the highest remains the same and they get more power.