valaramech

I generally agree with the stance that undercover cops should be allowed to lie, since failing to do so would defeat the purpose of being undercover. However, an officer actively arresting someone using their authority as a police officer should be required to be as truthful as possible with the person detained.

I’ll stop saying “defund the police” when “protect and serve” is actually what they do.

I’ve seen this claim made multiple times but the articles in question make no mention of it - including this one, unless I’m blind. Do you have a source for this claim?

Considering both include convulsions and cardiac arrest can be accompanied by agonal breathing, I don’t think you can definitively state this.

Smith also resisted breathing for as long as he could at the beginning of the procedure and I think that needs to be taken into account. I won’t say they absolutely didn’t botch his execution, but I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence to that effect.

A pure nitrogen environment does not prevent the exhalation of carbon dioxide (source).

From the Wikipedia article on Inert Gas Asphyxiation:

When humans breathe in an asphyxiant gas, such as pure nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, methane, or any other physiologically inert gas, they exhale carbon dioxide without re-supplying oxygen.

This leads to asphyxiation (death from lack of oxygen) without the painful and traumatic feeling of suffocation (the hypercapnic alarm response, which in humans arises mostly from carbon dioxide levels rising)

Unconsciousness in cases of accidental asphyxia can occur within one minute.

Loss of consciousness may be accompanied by convulsions[9] and is followed by cyanosis and cardiac arrest.

tl;dr - literally everything that happened in the execution was precisely as expected. Smith did not suffer and was not conscious after the first few minutes of the procedure.

There’s nothing wrong with OCI Images. If you’re concerned about the security of Docker (which, imo, you should be) there are other container runtimes that don’t have its security tradeoffs (e.g. podman).

The short version is that the creators of this API are doing something more secure than what the client wants to do.

A reasonable analogy would be trying to access a building locked by a biometric scanner vs. a guard looking for a piece of paper with a password on it. In the first case, only people entered into the scanner can get in (this is the cookie scenario). In the second case, anyone with a piece of paper with the right password on it will be let in (this is the Bearer token scenario).

More technical version: the API is made more secure because the “HttpOnly” cookie - which, basically, means the cookie’s contents can’t be read with JavaScript in the browser - is used to hold the credentials the server is looking for.

By allowing a third party to access the application, this means you have to allow methods that can be set “client-side” (e.g. via JavaScript in a browser). The most common method is in the “Authorization” HTTP Header - headers are metadata sent along with a request, they include things like the page you’re coming from and cookies associated with the domain. A “Bearer” token is one of the methods specified by the “Authorization” header. It’s usually implemented via passing the authorization credentials prefixed with the word “Bearer” (hence the name) and, often, are static, password-like text.

Basically, because this header has to be settable by a script, that means an attacker/hacker could possibly inject malicious code to steal the tokens because they must, at some point, be accessible.

In this thread, everyone getting caught up on the first toot and not the second where he clarifies his point.

If you step past the initial investment of buying a house, the analogy makes perfect sense. When you rent an apartment, your landlord (the provider) takes care of all the maintenance; you just live there and you get what you get. When you own a home, you take care of all of the maintenance, but you get to set the place up however you like. This isn’t that different from a lot of FOSS out there.

This misunderstands the premise. You cannot intuit someone’s subjective experience of reality because it is impossible for you to experience their experience of reality. You have only what they’re able to explain to you.

To come at this from the other direction, if a friend says to you “I’m having a good day” and does not appear obviously distressed, how could you judge the relative goodness of their day or if it was actually good at all?

Getting repeatedly beaten in competitive multiplayer games is just kinda par for the course if you haven’t learned the meta, strategies, etc. If you lack game knowledge and your opponents have that game knowledge, you will mostly lose.

If winning in the game is the only way you find enjoyment in them, then those kinds of games require significant investments of time and energy to “git good”.

I say this as someone who is repeatedly shit on in every game of CoD I’ve ever played and will play in the future. That said, I don’t gain particular enjoyment from winning alone - not that it isn’t fun to win, just that I get just as much enjoyment from other aspects of the game.

It sounds to me, mostly, that these games just don’t really appeal to your idea of what’s fun.

Because it’s the logical conclusion of mainstream pro-life rhetoric. If one believes that all human life is sacred and must be protected, then it follows that they should want all humans to be safe and protected, not just the ones that are still gestating.

The reality is that, to many of us on the pro-choice side of the debate, pro-life seems to be more about punishing women than it does about protecting (future) children. At the very least, the way many of the pro-life policies are implemented cause direct and sometimes deadly harm to women.

In my mind, if abortion is murder, so is preventing life saving treatment for women. There are times when abortion is medically necessary to protect women’s lives and we should allow them to make that choice for themselves.

Israeli settlers have, for years now, been slowly encroaching into territory officially recognized as Palestinian lands. These people absolutely have the choice to move back out of those areas and into lands officially recognized as belonging to Israelis. On the other hand, very few people can “just move, lol” and I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel specifically chose settlers that would be burdened economically if they attempted to leave.

To be clear, Israel has continuously acted in bad faith against Palestinians and, along with its allies, destroyed the peaceful (or, at least, less militant) groups that sought to unite the Palestinians. This is absolutely a problem of their own making and I would be surprised if there was a peaceful path forward with the current political climate in the region.

I’m not sure where that part of the post comes from. The source says “The judge said he will apppoint(sic) an independent receiver to manage the dissolution of the corporations whose business certificates he canceled.” Which I can only take to mean that the judge is doing the appointing, not Trump.

For me, it has a picture where it specifies a “polypropylene container”.

There’s also this bit from near the end of the abstract:

Additionally, the polyethylene-based food pouch released more particles than polypropylene-based plastic containers. Exposure modeling results suggested that the highest estimated daily intake was 20.3 ng/kg·day for infants drinking microwaved water and 22.1 ng/kg·day for toddlers consuming microwaved dairy products from polypropylene containers.

So, they’re, at least, discussing polypropylene and polyethylene.

Put simply, yes. Without explicit help to those that have less now, future generations simply lack the means to access those opportunities.

Take, for example, the situation ultimately presented in the article: if the person/people that are doling out the money have even a small amount of bias against a class of people, the result is that - outside of forcing investors to make what they see as bad investments - they will categorically invest less in that class of people. It doesn’t actually matter what class it is.

These laws might prevent us from codifying our biases into contract or other law, but they do absolutely nothing to solve the problem the bias itself causes.