slavak

That's true, but it likely has more to do with pollution from industry and cars and harmful habits like smoking, and less to do with eating baked goods.

I really wish people like you who _are_ billionaires would stop making threats and just do it already. Taking your ball and going home because you can't play nice doesn't work in grade school, and won't work in adult life; but maybe there would be a lot less background noise from all the rich people shaking their fists and threatening to do things we know damn well they never will.

Then don't place cookies that aren't necessary for the delivery of your service. There, problem solved!

If invading your users' privacy is more important than your site's user experience, then the blame is on you, not the legislation.

The Capitol is a literal building in Washington DC, which is the seat of the United States legislative. Even if it _was_ true that "people were roaming the streets smashing windows" when Trump was elected, no one was storming the Capitol building, which is why no one wrote anything about people storming the Capitol...

And it already has such an exercise body map: https://exrx.net/Lists/WtMale / https://exrx.net/Lists/WtFemale

I've been referencing that site for years. It's an amazing resource.

Waze is a mobile phone app that I get access to and maintenance of for free. If manufacturers think they'll get the same reaction from me on a car that I paid $40,000 for, they're in for a nasty surprise.

This already exists: https://www.geekwrapped.com/guides/best-electronic-ear-muffs

The utility is limited by the limitations of passive noise attenuation devices. These things are great for the shooting range, because bringing gunfire down to a level that won't damage your hearing is pretty easy. There's no kind of earphones that can just completely block out all sound, though.

Yes, Facebook could do that. There's probably many laws in many other countries Facebook operates in that are a lot less reasonable than this one, but I guess if for some reason this was the specific hill they wanted to die on, they would absolutely be free to do so.

Facebook also has a pretty big engineering office in Tel-Aviv, which they'd probably have to close in this scenario. I imagine that would also be a massive PITA. But, again, there's nothing technically stopping them from doing that.

The Israeli government has absolutely no say in how any of this plays out, that is the entire point of an independent judiciary. The lawsuit and sanctions are decided by the courts based on existing laws and precedent, and for them Facebook's size or position in the Israeli market does not (and should not) hold any weight whatsoever.

The most the legislative can do is amend the relevant laws to make what Facebook tried to do legal going forward, and that still wouldn't apply retroactively. The odds of the government choosing to extensively overhaul its consumer protection laws for the interests of a single multinational in a single lawsuit aren't great.

You're either a troll, or _really_ confused about what Socialism is.

I know this isn't the spirit of comments HN encourages, but I really can't afford to waste the time on writing a thoughtful reply to someone who is, most likely, purposefully ignorant. So I'll just link you to Wikipedia instead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

You can't land/takeoff an aircraft from public roads, for obvious reasons, but it's perfectly legal to do so to/from suitable open terrain, which in the case of light aircraft isn't hard to find. So while you're not going to be taking off directly from the highway (nor would you likely want to), it should be perfectly legal to drive off to a short trail somewhere and launch from there.

AFAIK a VFR flight requires neither filing a flight plan nor talking to ATC, and I doubt this thing is going to get much IFR time.

_Commercial aviation_ has a stellar safety record. The safety record for private and general aviation flying is pretty atrocious, and non-airline commercial operations (part 91, part 135) have varying levels of safety somewhere in between.

I think there can be little argument against the assertion that modernizing the general aviation fleet would improve safety. The majority of GA aircraft are using 60's technology carburetted reciprocating engines and running on leaded gasoline, and the cockpit is mostly analogue gauges with mechanical vacuum-driven gyros. Every car manufactured since the 90's uses fuel injection, yet GA pilots still need to worry about carburetor icing. That's not even going into other modern safety improvements like digital autopilot or ballistic recovery parachutes.

If jailbreaking could be done the same way I can unlock the bootloader for my Android device, you would have a point. Unfortunately it requires using security exploits, which Apple is doing its best to plug.

Every single secure facility I've ever been to required you to leave your phone at the gate, and this was pre-smartphone days. The more serious ones prohibited even disk-on-keys.If you're relying on kids keeping their phones secure for your national security, you've already lost.

> Then he proceeds to talk about "disinfectant, which knocks it out in a minute". Crucially, at no point has Trump ever suggested anything like "injecting bleach", yet thanks to CNN and gullible people like you half the country believes he did.

Really? His direct quote is:

"I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that."

He literally asked about injecting disinfectant into the body, referencing and immediately following a briefing that talks about using household disinfectants like bleach and isopropyl alcohol against SARS-Cov-2. You're either being purposefully disingenuous, or completely failing at listening comprehension. Either way, you're clearly not changing your mind here. But maybe I can inform other people that may end up reading your nonsense.

There's also this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IqWal_EmBg) famous recording of a Learjet 25 crew suffering hypoxia at 32,000 feet. I think it demonstrates quite well that you're _not_ going to lost consciousness within a few seconds at that altitude, although the danger is not to be understated.

No, it objectively isn't. The context of Trump's comments was a presentation by Bill Bryan from the Department of Homeland security on how to fight COVID-19, in which he explicitly discussed that

a) The virus dies quickest in the presence of direct sunlight. and b) Readily available household disinfectants are effective at killing the virus. He specifically mentions that bleach and isopropyl alcohol had been tested.

This is the immediate context in which Trump's comments about putting light inside the body and injecting disinfectant were made. There is absolutely no doubt what he meant here. Stop trying to gaslight people.

All of this is on video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtgVxGkrX1Y

No, because "ducted fan" has a very specific meaning in aerodynamics. But yes, a bladeless electric fan isn't actually bladeless, the blades are just hidden inside the fan body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducted_fan

This isn't something that's likely to ever be verified conclusively, but we do have evidence that COVID-19 is associated with myocardial injury and myocarditis. Sure, it's not impossible a young, fit and healthy professional athlete was suffering from undiagnosed heart inflammation prior to contracting a novel virus. It's very unlikely to be the case when a bunch of healthy young people are suddenly diagnosed with the condition concurrent to testing positive for COVID-19, though.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/what-e2-80-99s-...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X2...

Myocarditis can absolutely cause death during exercise, as the poster said. They didn't say any athletes actually died due to this.

https://www.myocarditisfoundation.org/exercise-during-myocar...

I think you're confused. The historic part isn't the postponement (not even cancellation) of the annexation plan, but the official signed peace treaty between Israel and the UAE. That's objectively historic, whether or not you think it's a good thing, and whatever your opinions are of the involved parties.

Officially, the annexation is not off the table, just postponed.

Practically, it doesn't look like annexation was ever realistically on the table to begin with. It's much more likely just a campaign slogan Netanyahu leaned on to woo the more hawkish parts of the right. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by actually trying to push it through.

Technically Palestine is split between Fatah/PLO in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza strip. The two don't see eye-to-eye on a great many issues, although it's a pretty safe bet this is not one of them.

Your comparisons are patently ridiculous. Jews were persecuted for personal beliefs that hurt no one and affected none but themselves; this is very much not the case for Brendan Eich, whose views and actions were explicitly intended to take away rights from others.

Moreover, the Spanish Inquisition acted on the power of royal decrees, so they very much enforced laws of the state, which means your example falls flat even on its most basic premise.

You seem to either misunderstand or misrepresent the point of the protests against Brendan Eich. Mozilla employees weren't trying to abridge his rights to free speech or to vote according to his beliefs, they simply didn't want to follow a person actively working towards making their lives measurably worse for no good reason. Of course getting him to resign doesn't make him change his voting; that was never the point! Brendan Eich isn't a child, and people's main objective isn't to discipline him and make him understand what he did wrong- it's to limit his damage! Why allow someone to infect an organization you care about and depend on with their toxic beliefs? Again, a CEO's biases don't amount to a hurtful code comment; they are steering the entire company culture!

You've got it backwards- the rank and file are held to much different standards than upper management. As a Sw. Engineer, or even a team lead, my opinions are indeed my own, as long as they don't negatively impact my work; as a CEO, his opinions shape the direction of the company; this isn't something you can just leave at the door, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

Again, this isn't just about an unpopular opinion or a difference of perspective. We're talking about literally denying human beings their civil rights. Where do you draw the line with this? Do I need to accept a person who works towards racial segregation? Is a Nazi acceptable, as long as they don't try to commit genocide on company time?

If you're ever on the wrong side of granting people basic human and civil rights, I hope you'll have the good sense to reconsider and change your position. I'm not sure why you believe anyone owes you acceptance of your views regardless of what they are.

In addition to everything pseudalopex said below, which I agree with 100%, I'll just add that, yes, some things absolutely are and should be black-and-white, my-way-or-the-highway. Particularly, issues of human- and civil-rights.

The opposition to Eich was not because of some unpopular opinion he held at some vague point in the past. He wanted to ban same-sex marriage in 2008, and all indications are he still wanted that in 2014. Eich had ample chance to easily diffuse the situation by clarifying his beliefs; instead, he provided vague platitudes about inclusiveness and leaving his personal opinions at the door.

I'm sure there's plenty of companies that wouldn't mind having an anti-gay-marriage CEO. Hell, most people could stomach working with someone with those views; remember Eich was chief technologist and a Mozilla board member from the start, and CTO from 2005, which Mozilla's LGBTQ employees obviously tolerated. But I'm sorry, I have very little trust that a company can maintain a certain set of values, when I know for a fact its Chief Executive Officer holds diametrically opposite views. Management shapes every aspect of a company, so the personal opinions of the person holding the highest position in that chain matter.

There is nothing unethical about acting this way. This is not denying Brendan Eich his humanity (unlike what his views do to others). Being CEO of Mozilla is not a basic human right that he is being denied.

Brendan Eich was in no way destroyed, and it certainly wasn't over speech. The anger against Eich was because of _actions_, specific and concrete, the entire purpose of which was to deny people like you basic civil rights.

Firstly, it was _not_ a single political donation.

I'm Jewish. If it came out that the new CEO of my company made white supremacist statements half a decade ago, without any indication they had changed their position since, you better believe I would refuse to continue working for that company until and unless they were no longer CEO.

This isn't a disagreement about the marginal tax rates to apply to millionaires, or a political difference about some minutiae of government regulation. Prop. 8 was directly opposed to the basic human rights of a segment of the population. Why would I, as a gay person, work for someone who seeks to deny me the basic right of an equal-under-the-law domestic partnership? Why would I, as a person with gay friends, overlook something like that, just because the CEO gives vague promises of being "supportive and welcoming" without actually disavowing any of their discriminatory viewpoints?

Human rights are not a political position, and opposing them is not simply a friendly disagreement. No one is obligated to tolerate your attempts to deny people basic human rights in the name of inclusiveness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CE...

I see no misinterpretation of the GPL here. The document explains why the FG team thinks FGMEMBERS is harmful and a bad idea; at no point that I can see did they imply what FGMEMBERS are doing was illegal.

Care to elaborate?