Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

At least credit him for being honest... and who's not for more honesty in relationships??? if only...

He's fired.

Hopefully his relationship with his daughter doesn't go the same way as his career.

If only sex just felt good and didn't have all this power/status bullshit rolled up with it - specifically for men anyway. But maybe then the human race would have wanked it's way to oblivion. Who can say. Basically I dunno if hookers or various other arrangements would suit most people. I suspect it's less about the actual physical activity, and more about the desire to be wanted, or possible just a desire to have an intimate relationship with somebody else. But then in Japan you can buy a hug, so perhaps no human interaction cannot be commodified... Not sure if it is a suitable treatment for misogyny - "Here is one dose of sexual objectification!"

As hamsteralliance says, ContentAware uses proximity matching and relative area matching. If you tried to fill in the white space with ContentAware, it'd be full of everything except eyes. They nVidia folks used thousands of images to train the neural net (ie generate the model using training data) which has more discrete sequential or spatial relationships between features (ie. eyes go to either side of the nose, below the eyebrows, level, interpupilary distance etc etc). The neural approach ALWAYS needs training data sets - it doesn't appear to (from reading the paper) any adaptive or learning algorithm outside of the neural framework (so, it's not AI in the sense that it learns from any environmental stimulus and alters its response... that I can see anyway. The paper doesn't get into the minutiae). But I'd still date her, if only she'd have me.

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.

I'll give you a synopsis:

God established the law because of sin:

Galatians 3:19

Why then was the Law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator

The seed it is talking about is Jesus Christ, referred to by this prophecy in Genesis of the coming of the Messiah:

Genesis 3

14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

Sin came into the world through the transgression of Adam. Because of sin man was separated from God because God is holy and cannot dwell with sin. Because of sin God gave us the law as Paul referred to. Jesus, the new Adam, satisfied all of the moral requirements of the law by living a perfect life. He reestablished the relationship between God and man:

Romans 5

17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous

This is what it means when it says He came to fulfill the law. He brought everything full circle back to the way it was before man first sinned. That is why the law is no longer necessary, because we are made right with God not by obeying the law, but through our faith in Jesus Christ.

When Jesus died on the cross He said "It is finished". It is translated from a greek word "tetelestai", which means paid in full. It something a merchant would stamp on a loan document that was paid up. He said that because He fulfilled the law and paid our sin debt on the cross.

This doesn't mean that there aren't any moral requirements for Christians, but they aren't the same as the ones given to the nation of Israel. We are under a New Covenant and the law of Christ:

Luke 22

19And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

Galatians 6

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Christ gave us commands to obey, one of which you mentioned: love your neighbor as yourself. Also, love one another as I have loved you and many others. All of the 10 commandments were reiterated although there is a deeper meaning and interpretation to some of them now. Do not commit adultery now extends to lusting after a women in your heart. Jesus also said that hating someone is murdering them in your heart.

The civil and ceremonial laws of Israel no longer apply exactly because Jesus did fulfill the law.

Treating others like you would have them treat you, the golden rule....what Jesus told you is the most important rule.

When Jesus taught us to treat others as we would have them treat us, it has force because He is morally perfect. We are morally imperfect. We tell people to do things we don't do, and tell people not to do things we do do. Can you name a single human being on whose shoulders we could place objective morals? If you can't then you can see the problem, I hope

Btw, here is a great educational site which is completely free

https://vmcontenders.org/all-courses/

Sadly, that's mostly correct.
There is no legal requirement to treat your children fairly, or to raise well adjusted, humane, empathetic children that love and respect their parents, only a moral one.
To pick nits, people aren't totally free to make their own choices regarding their own affairs, and their personal part of any relationship with others. Parents must supply a certain minimum by law, no choice involved. Beyond basic needs, I agree, people are free to be as douchey as they choose.

Hmm, I partly agree.

Surely, what goes around comes around. Kids are people, too.

You do some shit to poke your kids in the feels, you'll have to live with the consequences.

However, I don't see the debt (owe).
People are free to make their own choices regarding their own affairs, and their personal part of any relationship with others.
People are free to dislike other people's choices.

Happiness/contentment is not a requirement, and no one else has to go out of their way to make whoever else happy.

-scheherazade

Yeah, I can totally understand that. Certainly the plot didn't require it and normally I could do without some romantic subplot... but as you say, I think it was deliciously symbolic and complimented the themes of the movie really well. Apart from arguing over whether Deckard is in fact a replicant or not, the topic of debate among friends was the nature of K and Joi's relationship. I mean, for this scene...the real person is faking an intimate relationship, and the fake person...well its not really clear if she is faking it or not. It's simultaneously real and it isn't. I thought it was excellent.

3 years? bah! that's nothing!

after 13 years I'm still grinding and polishing my relationship and still nowhere near getting a clear picture of what is going on

I'm not worried about people being confused, more like confirmation bias.

You can get an Alt-Right website that does nothing but post 100% accurate, verified true stories. You can even have them stick to the facts and stay away from any editorialising within their reporting. If they then proceed to exclusively and only report stories about violent crime by non-white or non-christian minorities, they would have loads of content from across the country to publish every day.

I'm hoping that it's easy to see the problem with that?

I'm merely saying you can swap out alt-right for Scahill, and violent crime by minorities for American foreign policy evils and you still have much the same situation.

By definition foreign policy involves the relationship of at least two countries, reporting exclusively on the problems of only one of those countries creates a problem, same as alt-right example.

Except NZ's gun laws were already stricter than Australias. To get an AR15 here, buyers must have a standard, current firearms licence and an approved police order form. If the clip has a higher capacity than 7 rounds, you need a special endorsement. Also, you must have proper storage for firearms which the police will inspect before granting a licence.

Oh, and you will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

a history of violence
repeated involvement with drugs
been irresponsible with alcohol
a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

That's a direct quote from the police licence page

Ok, finally got to watch this, and let me say, on behalf of the rest of the world...

America, are you ok?
Look, we kinda get why you're in this abusive relationship, but it's time to admit it's just not working out.
YOU CAN DO BETTER.
You don't deserve this shit. You can leave him and we will be here for you. Even if he's being a total psycho, you can come round and crash on at our place until he moves out. We can get pizza! Hell, go back to the last guy... he was good to you.

Ah. Well. I taught ballroom dance for years. I have a different relationship to the human body moving to music than the average person.

I loved this. It just hurts. I want to give Eli lessons... and some of those backup dancers, too.

A+++++++++++ for doing it, for sure.

You're overcomplicating it.

Wordless assent is fine, especially in an already committed relationship.

The issue here is less about consent and more about refusal.

If you're feeding each other and someone wants you to stop, just stop. Ok, if you're literally pouring tea into them at the time, it's not going to be instantaneous, but it's still pretty clear that they're no longer into it. Especially if they say "no" or try to push you away.

This isn't rocket science.