He kneels for money.

The current official-ish meaning of racism (what the authorities who believe it exists and is a problem mean when they say it) is that it's race-based prejudice by a privileged class which disadvantages a real or perceived ethnic group. (I've already described what I think it means.) And there is evidence of racism in the department which is relevant in the Chauvin case. Much of the point of the currently popular definition is that racism is pervasive, and while it can be unconscious, this doesn't prevent it from having effects.

Barring other more credible explanations, of course it is.

AI Bots scraping AI generated content to feed the AI Machine.

As far as I know, this has generally been the standard (or lack thereof) over that same period.

When I see POWER benchmarked against amd64, the results are generally only competitive.

Which it was until Cyrix came along and gave it "modern" features like register renaming. :)

The standard for what is fair use is what is necessary for purpose, and also what the purpose is. Sampling even a second of another work purely for profit can be infringing. Including another work in its entirety can be valid fair use if it is somehow necessary for the purpose of critique. Intent is always relevant. Nature of use is always relevant to fair use. The big problem with fair use is that there is not a simple and clear standard, and it's up to the court system to determine what is or isn't it. This makes it literally impossible to determine ahead of time what will or won't be considered fair use.

The point of diagnosable ADHD, or any other "behavior problem" really, is that they can't just do that.

Yes, really.

I did not ask whether any race of person could be racist. I asked whether racism could be selective.

I didn't ask whether it would be odd or atypical.

If racism can be selective, then his wife being Laotian is irrelevant even if someone could not marry someone of a race they were prejudiced against, which they can — just as someone can marry someone of a gender (or sex, if you like, the same argument can be used either way) which they are prejudiced against.

Why do you keep dodging the questions by answering unasked questions?

For clarification: I believe there are two parts to racism. One, believing race is a real thing. Two, being prejudiced against a race. Anything else that doesn't satisfy both conditions is some other kind of prejudice. I agree with you that anyone can be racist, despite that being against the currently accepted definition, which also requires privilege. I do not believe that racism requires privilege, though I do believe that is the most concerning type of racism as it has the most significant effects.

For further clarification: I do not believe that race is a real thing, as there is no scientific basis for it. There is more difference between members of "racial" groups then there is between various "racial" groups on average, which is why race is a psuedoscientific idea. That idea was invented specifically 1) to divide us into clearly separated groups, and for the purpose of 2) justifying ill treatment of some of those groups. It persists with assistance from many different groups, some of them well-meaning, most of them not.

Obviously nobody can force you to answer the questions actually asked, but it's telling that you won't. It doesn't tell us that you're racist, but it does suggest that you know there are problems with your argument.

The copyright claim system is literally designed to enable abuse because it doesn't include penalties for false claims, and the victims of such have to go to court for relief.

False copyright claims should be subject to review, and someone who makes too high a percentage of false claims should lose their right to make those claims for a period based on the percentage. Fraud is supposed to be illegal, and making false claims that affect competitors (e.g. for eyeballs on social media) is obviously fraud as there is a material benefit, however slight. It also has a chilling effect on free speech, so it should be treated as an attack on constitutional rights.

What's the relevance of his wife being Laotian? Do you think that someone cannot be racist about some "races" and not others? For that matter, do you think that someone cannot marry someone of a "race" they are prejudiced against?

No, it isn't. Nobody would be swatting anyone if the police weren't known for overreaction, because getting them to overreact in hopes that they will harm the victim is the point.

Important note for this argument: There also doesn't have to be a death for there to be harm.

Maybe you did everything appropriate for someone with ADHD, because you correctly guessed what the problem was. In that case, congratulations! But you are surely in a minority, so in most cases there are most likely changes which should be attempted before medication.

I wouldn't rule that out, but I wouldn't dismiss the ingenuity of little brats, either. Some of those brats are plenty intelligent, and they not only can learn obvious lessons about prior incidents, they also exchange information.

Yes, but those are things that literal children can comprehend.

This is the real root of the problem. When some anonymous party makes a report to police, they have to take it seriously because there are legitimate reasons to make reports anonymously. The police are effectively treating the RP (reporting party) as the IC (incident commander) but according to NIMS principles, even if that were true, the IC is the person on the scene with the best understanding of the situation. But we are not holding that person responsible, and we must do that. An anonymous party can never be an IC, because of the chain of command, and because they are not on the scene.

and the boys were already ten and eleven years old when I entered their life

I hope you got a good relationship with them! My son can't even talk yet. So, right now, he's just this cute thing that runs around and causes trou^H^H^H^Hgood things to happen.