goatcode

Could it apply to online retailers like Amazon, too?

As a developer myself, I seriously doubt we'd have what it takes to get this signed, in an analogous way to what it took to get the original signed. I get nervous when I'm waiting behind someone at the coffee machine, thinking that my presence might make them uncomfortable. Demands are things I'm not good at.

> democracy

> democratically elected president

That's not really what I was talking about.

>Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people

You disagree with letting censorship be decided on democratically?

If so, and while microplastics may still be an issue, leeching due to wet beans being in contact with the plastic lining of their cans is not. Along the same lines as my original general message: a bit at a time.

It's difficult to do it all at once. Taking little steps might help: instead of using plastic tupperware, use glass; instead of buying beans in a can, buy dry beans; balcony garden? Sure!

Even if some things are impossible to do, it's imo best to not pile on top of those problems issues that aren't impossible to solve.

Is it possible that endocrine disruption could be related to issues with physical fitness too? There are many factors, but this could also be one, perhaps.

Maybe not giving big anything tax breaks or funding would help solve some of the problems.

Maybe it's either-or. Or, the "what a government can do" could be limited in such a way that it also includes imposing aggressive antitrust law.

Lobbyists are a thing, as are barriers to entry. Of course they love regulations that help them. They sometimes even write those regulations themselves.

My notion of regulations isn't about quantity, but about quality. The lower the quality, over time, the higher the quantity. Thus forming a sort of spider-web-like structure, except spider webs are often of greater quality than legislation.

Indirectly, sure. Predatory capitalists love regulations, when they get big enough.

Bless you for being robust. This is the spirit that will save humanity from regulatory spider webs, and produce some fantastic things long into the future.

My point has illustration here.

"Rifle is perfect! It needs bluetooth" seems strange to me too.

I think I understand now: the software was doing the wrong thing. They thought they were making one transaction, but they made a different one. One wonders how long that had been going on for, and how it could have been going on for so long.

Thanks for the explanation. It saddens me how brutal people here are in response to a misunderstanding, judging by the downvotes, but oh well.

Maybe I misunderstood, but all of them either "thought" that was the right thing to do or signed off on it. Even if the software should have warned them, shouldn't they have known the correct transactions to make?

It looks like they were all under-qualified. I wonder how much the decision to hire them all will end up costing anyone other than them, and the people who hired them.

It kind of sounds like you're following an extremely unnatural sleep pattern. Chemically, psychologically, humans were meant to be awake with the sun and asleep with the dark. Do you remember sleeping poorly when you did this?

Fair point. I guess we've seen a lot of surprised people on Twitter lately, for a similar reason.

>they are opting into package thieves, not protest monitoring

This is not explained in ToS?

Free Julian.

No. However, my question was specifically about how I can effectively think in a specific situation.

The issue is needing to be able to think in order to solve a problem, while driving, though.

I took what the author wrote to indicate that there was no available test to do what he'd wanted to do. I really wish people would drop the whole "because reasons" thing, especially when writing something meant to be read by many other people.

There were no specifics at all in what I posted. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I welcome actual information, though.

Please keep us posted. From a naive perspective, what happened has a flavor of "protection fees." A detailed explanation would help quickly dispel this perspective.

This read like a really shitty, saccharine, abridged, disjointed article. It barely touched on its title. How did this get to the front page?

Remember when the FBI scanned the anonymous DNA database, from either this or some similar company, found a match, then used that match to get a warrant for the match's personal info? I do.

> FDA approval

Of what?

Edit: I get it now, sorry. I think FDA approval would bump up the price quite a bit.

> In principle one can run a similar antibody test on a mucus sample, but <reasons>

I'd really like to know what those reasons are. It seems like a pretty important detail.