jayjaycali

I would generally think if one is connected or has more understanding of the significance of these it's a more impressive experience. A painter or art historian might get more out of a visit to the Mona Lisa than most for example.

Bullet point two in the reply I think was worth the irony. You're argument indeed makes a large assumption on how I used the prompt. Then it use 'likely' as a word to pretend to claim some reasonable threshold or statistics to back it up to make it sound grounded The argument makes a blanket claim: discussion with AI cannot catch logical fallacies or refine arguments or grammar and paint is as 'outsourcing thinking' instead in a blanket fashion before that's even established The argument sneaks in 'inconvenient truth' as though the argument was true. To make the argument a 'valid point' it's better to refute the rebuttal and continue, claiming its a 'valid point' doesn't suddenly make it so. Sorry but I'll try and read replies to hear you out but I will have to try and decline responding as much as I might want to since for me it's likely more aggravation than I should let it give me. Tc.

AI overview: What you're looking at is a classic internet forum derailment: one user points out a highly specific instance of profiling or selective enforcement (targeting a traveler based on clothing choices and presentation), and the replier attempts a "mic drop" by using a generic AI Overview snippet to completely invalidate the claim. The logic in that reply falls flat for a few reasons: It’s a False Dichotomy: The argument implies that because female sex workers statistically face massive scrutiny at international borders, a gay traveler cannot be experiencing selective enforcement. In reality, border profiling isn't a zero-sum game; multiple demographics can face distinct, systemic biases at the same time. The "AI Weapon" Fallacy: Using a surface-level AI search summary as a definitive, unassailable legal source to dismiss someone's lived experience or a specific case study is incredibly weak debate etiquette. Ignoring the Trigger: The original poster ("jayjaycali") was highlighting that the enforcement became active the second officers focused on the traveler's presentation. Border agents exercise immense subjective discretion, and behavioral or aesthetic profiling happens constantly, regardless of macro-demographic trends. It’s a frustrating brand of online argument where nuance goes to die.

Yes, the law is the law. A confession is a confession. But we also jaywalk. We go five miles over the speed limit. And who is 100% sure their tax return isn't off by a couple of dollars? We don't expect to face maximum punishment for those everyday infractions. What we really have here is selective enforcement aimed at a gay traveler, which was made completely obvious the second they focused on his clothing choices

How does escort shelf life matter? We standardly use the price of bread or milk to track decades of cumulative inflation because staples dictate the baseline cost of living. Inflation is tied to the market value of the service, not the career span of the person. Furthermore, quoting a generic national average ignores that the cost of living in dense metro markets may increase significantly faster than the national aggregate (e.g. rent). I can understand the opinion of baseline 3.3% inflation rate as negligible, but it actively overshoots the Fed's 2% target (65% overshoot). I think we can't be completely dismissive of that (especially with previous years' rates compounding cumulatively).

It's fascinating how the media landscape is framed so that any source offering outside perspective is quickly labelled 'biased'. When we're trained to automatically discard every global data post that doesn't align with a home-grown perspective it's worth asking who benefits from keeping us so isolated.

So 14 days and it's in the NASDAQ 100 . Index funds are forced to rebalance to include it. Maybe that spikes the price. New rules also let VCs exit earlier when it's at those peaks. That might drop the price. So, wouldn't it be good to buy in, then sell right before the new early VC exit timeline when VCs sell (or front run their front running or do some shorting)

Thanks for pointing that out—implying that officers have to 'manufacture' or create evidence would be a reach, which is precisely why I didn’t say it. I appreciate our pre-emptively diverting the discussion away from what could have been a sideways attack on my credibility. Perhaps a facial recognition 'ping' was enough. If so, it certainly proves that Restrained Discretion is not a straitjacket. The government can secure the border and act on leads without needing 'Broad Discretion' to dig through everyone else's private life on a whim. Secondly, under a 'Broad Discretion' system without a legal bar, getting through the border is more like a lottery. You're simply hoping you don't get picked because you 'look like' someone who might have a reason to be searched. This might surprise, but I actually want a strong system of law and order: an agreed-upon framework where the rules are known. I want to cross the border under well-established laws, not just cross my fingers and hope I don't trigger a personal hunch or a 'ping' from surveillance I'm not allowed to see. Thanks for all the disucssions it's been a very interesting thread and helped me clarify my thoughts. I think I need to bow out here, though—it’s taking me an hour to write these up! (If I can, I'm finding the discussion fascinating).

'zero' threshold means unchallenged power, while 'non-zero' means Accountability. Well, my perspective at least. For Milo though as he was unprepared, I can certainly believe this threshold was a minor speed bump for the officers. They were professionals who know how to use the interview to establish suspicion for the search after which the search would be conducted regardless

It is noble to want to empower the authorities. However I feel there's a different possible viewpoint on giving border officers broad discretion . Giving the government 'broad discretion' is like giving every cop a Skeleton Key to your front door. They say it’s so they can 'check if the stove is on' or 'make sure you're safe,' but at the end of the day, it’s still your door. I don't care how 'nice' the cop is; I don’t want a stranger walking through my living room whenever he has a 'hunch.' I’m not trying to put the cops in a "straitjacket." If they see smoke coming out of the window, they should absolutely kick the door down. That’s Evidence. But they shouldn't be allowed to use that Skeleton Key just because I seem like the type of person prone to house fires. And here's the thing: Having a lock on the door doesn't stop the cop from being a "good guy." If he comes in because the house is on fire and sees an expired tag on your car, he can still choose to ignore it. Restraining his power to enter doesn't take away his power to be merciful. An alternative to broad discretion does not have to be rigid application, it can be restrained discretion according to precise laws not vague hunches. Ironically in a Canadian Prescreen area travellers like Milo are protected by Canadian Charter Rights against unreasonable search and R v Canfield, whereas these protections don't exist to prevent similar phone searches in the USA.

I think escorts are an easy target because they elicit little sympathy from the public when they're caught. I think milo is a fairly harmless, naive person, excited about an awards show who was then subject to institutionalized and professional interrogation techniques by people who know the book in and out. I think a kinder system would have told him he needs to seek a business meetings visa for the show or similar, and issue a stern warning about doing any work, such as content creation without authorization, before re-trying an entry. I think treating him with this type of scrutiny with the purpose to elicit a confession to obtain a 10 year ban is cruel. I think it wasn't that long ago that the idea of a government agent scrolling through your private DMs, photos, and bank statements without a warrant was treated as a dystopian nightmare.

There's a threshold potentially, you might need to cross 0.5% of your income before deductions kick in, I think new for 2026, depending on how you file. Just in case good to check since, if applicable, donations below the floor don't have the same tax benefit.

Chess? Usually not too hard to find groups for that.

I'd attend too if there's some gathering

Actually that reminded me, Android now has something called Private Space where you can partition apps away and with a different Google login so it's treated like a separated account and can't share. At least i think that's what it does. Haven't tried it myself.