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?

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.

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.

Alright friend, OP certainly never implied “giving government ubiquitous control over the food supply” by any means, so at least this is clearly a simple case of strawman fallacy.

edit: like if you think about it for literally more than two seconds, you’ll realize that OP’s idea involved building capacity amongst the general population for horticulture, something which fundamentally opposes the idea of giving government ubiquitous control.

Is there a name for the fallacy that something is doomed to fail just because some quasi-communist state tried to implement something similar at some point?

You seem to be assuming that this idea would have to solve all food consumed by everyone. No one is making that assumption except for you.

Only available for children in the summer… I don’t think this isn’t the solution being proposed.

Sorry to say, but this is a very colonial mindset, so much so that you did not bother to look up their treaty. As it happens, Canada has a specific obligation under Treaty 6 to provide agricultural support/development, which they have failed to do and thus have offered a settlement to the Lac La Rouge Indian Band.

You should also acknowledge that centuries of oppression, genocide, and environmental exploitation are also violations of the treaty signed by the Crown, and failures to hold up the Crown’s promise to prevent pestilence and famine… you know, like scurvy.

Please educate yourself before speaking up on matters of First Nations and treaties and propagating misinformation.