Actually, "God does not exist" is not a claim. "God exists" is a claim, though. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot and my other comment for clarity on this
It really doesn't matter how cheap they get, I'm never going to own a networked ipad on wheels, covered in cameras, that can be disabled remotely on Elon Musk's whim...
NVME for OS /
1-2gb for /boot partition so you dont't get screwed on a kernel update
Mount SSD as /home
You could say this at basically any point in hunan history and it would still be true
No, the first person is using burden of proof correctly and the second person is incorrect about any logic fallacies. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
the burden of proof is not on whoever "speaks", like the second person incorrectly states, but whoever makes a specific type of claim. The first person is not making a claim of that type by saying "there is not a God" and therefore does not have any burden of proof, but someone who says "there is a God" is making a claim of that type and must prove it before it can be believed
In the teapot example, if I say "there isn't a teapot floating orbiting the Sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars" I have no burden to prove this before it can be believed, because there is no evidence of the teapot existing. If you claimed the teapot did exist, you'd need to provide evidence of it
Another way to think about it is, imagine someone says "God doesn't exist", someone else says "prove it!", and, for the purpose of the thought experiment, they actually somehow did produce hard evidence that objectively settles the dispute. Did they "prove that God doesn't exist" or did they "disprove the existence of God"? You can't prove a negative, so it is the latter. The existence of God is the actual "claim", so saying "God exists" requires burden of proof, but "God doesn't exist" is not a "claim"
It's not even useful for testing or development either because it can only mock up existing features that have already been tested 😂 unless your game is literally 100% recycled unoriginal garbage, this won't work
Why would you waste all that time collecting the ridiculous amount of game footage required to train the model on your unfinished game, and then do that over again the moment you make a change, when you could just... test it...??? It's literally faster and less effort to use traditional means than it is to try to use AI. 🤦 not to mention, you're going to have to test it normally anyway, whether you use this or not, there's no getting around that
Force-a-Nature
bottled water quality is less regulated than tap water lol
I assume a paid cellular service plan for the hotspot is required for it to connect to a cell tower?
Why should garbage unhealthy "food" be marketed to children though?
That's actually not how claims work, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot