It’s not nuts when you stop being intentionally obtuse and speak plainly: yes, child abuse material can be represented by a variety of mathematical means, but it’s abhorrent nature makes it morally correct for those laws to exist.
676 karma · joined August 5, 2020
I find it hard to believe you seriously consider this, even in the absurd world of MAD-driven decisions.
Simply put, for it to be even remotely likely would require that none of these devices had as of yet been discovered, nor the intelligence nor logistics surrounding them been compromised or otherwise intercepted.
Consider that if such a situation were to be true, and uncovered, that the only possible responses would be either immediate action to have them removed, immediate retaliation, or allowing them to exist. In the first two scenarios, the weapons are no longer relevant, whether because they’re removed or war has started. In the final scenario, we’re functionally at the same place as we are with the traditional nuclear triad, albeit far closer to the precipice due to reasons made clear in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
All of this to say, the challenges, costs, and risks of enacting such a situation, as utterly ridicule-worthy in their totality as they are, can perhaps be hand-waved away by pointing to other Cold War era events. However, to argue this has actually been done, despite the entire lack of any strategic benefit, and the immeasurable net loss of position and risk to the Russians that results? Come on.
He’s done so since the start of his podcast.
In checking, Dexcom is clearly listed as a company he advised during the period listed on Open Payments.
Incredibly cool (hah) paper to read, thank you.
Acceleration to 66 km/s is probably a little bit overkill, even.
Firstly, you complain of a third-party dependency being broken in a preview build of Safari, and that you had went on holiday the week the stable version was published, meaning you couldn’t guarantee the problem was fixed in the stable release. Plainly, that’s an organisational problem on your end—the Safari team fixed the problem on their end. I’ll come back to your complaints re. release schedules.
Your second complaint is, in your own words, “we accidentally relied on a Chrome bug that meant our Service Worker was broken in Safari 16.4.” You go on to rehash your initial complaint, which is that Apple doesn’t publish a release schedule for Safari. I don’t inherently disagree with this complaint at face value.
Finally you move on to your third complaint, but to me it seems like yet another problem on your end. You made the observation that a given feature was supported and made the assumption that it was supported fully, with no other logic in place to test functionality or fallback to another rendering method. By your own admission again: “We detected OffscreenCanvas merely by seeing if it was defined. I never expected a browser to ship it with some contexts but not others - I assumed it would have parity with the standard canvas element.” I can understand the frustration and panic of being caught out here, but the pitfall is in your application logic. Your arguments afterwards with regard to supporting existing content are well said, but don’t generalise in this case. Just because something broke for you doesn’t mean everyone made the same flawed assumptions you did.
You then go on to list a random assortment of historic instances of Safari having flaws, as if that isn’t true of all browsers across the board.
Read that again. Six kilograms, per year. Every year.
Given a person consuming near their total daily energy expenditure, that’s the difference between losing almost 20 kg since the start of COVID, and gaining 20 kg.
Small changes over time compound in unintuitive ways, which is all the more reason not to dismiss them so flippantly.
Further, even with antivenom administered, a person is likely to experience a range of side effects and symptoms that would be life threatening emergencies even in if they were inside an ICU, let alone out in the field. Without the compliment of an equipped medical professional and supportive care, antivenom may well do more harm than good in the immediate aftermath of envenomation.
Far better to get the person out of harms way and follow your local first aid procedure for snakebites. In Australia for example, that’s the pressure immobilisation technique, but in other countries it’ll depend on the venom in question. Rattlesnake venom is often necrotising and a tourniquet may cause more harm. Anything that buys more time is key.
Aspartame is safe, and very well tolerated.
You’re spreading misinformation.