tghw

It's also significantly faster the webpack, at least in my experience.

You vastly overestimate the security of safes. It might take a while and you might kill a few drill bits in the process, but you could definitely drill through most safes, especially in home installations.

As far as relockers go, you've already resorted to destructive methods. If you find that it's worth opening after drilling, then you'll find a way in.

The freedom of the press is specifically called out for a reason.

You have it backwards. Conflating free speech with paid ads isn't about whether the paid ads are free speech, it's whether paid ads are necessary for free speech. That's an important distinction, and is clearly the argument the OP is making.

Zuck never said it explicitly, but it's strongly implied from his conflation of free speech and paid ads that he thinks paid ads are necessary for the freedom of speech.

That's where the fallacy lies. Paid ads, while being free speech, skew the messages' reach. It's cute that he tries to use a grassroots message as the upside, but it overlooks two massive problems that are pervasive on his platform.

1. The deeper your pockets, the louder your megaphone. It doesn't really matter that the little guys can also buy political ads if the big players can drown them out. In fact, I would say it has the opposite effect than the one he suggests. A grassroots effort with a compelling message can make waves without political advertising, e.g. the Arab Spring. But in an environment where most political messaging is ad-based, a small effort will never have enough resources to compete with a larger foe.

2. There is no accountability in the political ads. In one example, there are at least 10 "different" pages all disseminating the same false messages, coordinated at the same time. Yet Facebook says these are unrelated pages. Being as there is no reporting of who is funding the ads, it's impossible to tell if it is a candidate, a PAC, or a foreign power backing them. And as we've seen, that lack of accountability can be very problematic.

We have a lot of rules about political speech because we have seen over time how it can be abused. Social media did not exist at the time, but now it has more power than any other form of media. Twitter sidestepped the whole issue, and kudos to them for it. Candidates and PACs can still get their messages out, but now it has to be on merit rather than money. Facebook is going the opposite direction, and that's a problem.

No one is saying paid speech is not free speech. Obviously it is.

The flawed argument Zuck made is that in order to have free speech we must have paid speech. That's a self-serving fallacy.

There's a difference between paying for printing costs and paying a middle man to distribute your message to an arbitrary number of people, especially when that middle man has zero accountability and zero marginal cost.

First step would be banning political ads on social media platforms. And then everywhere else.

The problem with your initial argument is that paid political ads give even more power to the gatekeepers. It also overlooked the issue that more money equals more speech, meaning grassroots political movements are at an even bigger disadvantage because of the disparity of funds than if everyone had to get their message out organically.

I have a bunch doing different things:

One is running our sprinklers with OpenSprinklerPi https://opensprinkler.com/product/opensprinkler-pi/

One is running VolumeIO to splay music on the speakers in our house as a Spotify Connect device https://volumio.org/

One controls our whole house humidifier via a relay and a combination of weather and thermostat information.

One has been turned into a precision/TSD/regularity rally computer for my vintage car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regularity_rally

One runs my 3D printer using OctoPrint https://octoprint.org/download/

And I use one as a race car telemetry system using a 9-dof sensor and a GPS module (with brake, throttle, and steering inputs to come).

For most of these projects, they're complete overkill in terms of hardware, but with integrated wifi and bluetooth, and a host of GPIO pins, they make developing projects like this dead simple. And at $35, the amount of time they save is well worth it over bare metal hardware.

No, but women are marginalized in many aspects of life, including their careers. That leads them to be minorities in leadership positions and other positions of power, which then perpetuates the cycle.

The issue isn't her agency in choosing to model or not. The issue is that casually having a Playboy around work is in and of itself exclusionary. It taints the history of graphics research because it is so clearly inappropriate, and only in a very broken work culture would it be remotely okay to have that sort of stuff just laying around.

Sign up for a free Fusion 360 license and watch a lot of YouTube tutorials. If you're good with spacial relationships, you'll start to work it out pretty quickly.

Of course, there are also online courses, but for the most part the software is so good it's not necessary.

Legalize cannabis. Opioid deaths have dropped here in Colorado since legalization.

That logic is inherently flawed because luck plays a part in each of those aspects, too. To have learned the "relevant skills" means you need to have been fortunate enough to have been provided an education. To build a network that matters you need to have access to the right people. Looking for new business opportunities is only possible if you have the resources to do.

Eventually, it all goes back to who you were born as and who you were born to. Your odds of "success" are much higher if you're born as a white male in the US than if you're born as an female in rural India. No amount of effort can change those odds.

That's not to say that effort doesn't play a part, it absolutely does. But a significant amount of success is supported by good fortune layered on more good fortune.

It's not a race to the bottom. It's a correction. Why should your health care be determined by your employer? It's a ludicrous system that should have died decades ago.

For those who don't want a giant photo of Bill Gates because the link is to the mobile version:

http://www.kgw.com/news/bill-gates-buys-big-chunk-of-land-in...

> Self-driving cars may have a faster reaction time, but they will never reach the level of human awareness of their surroundings while driving.

Self driving cars can simultaneously see in 360 degrees with multiple types of sensors. They already see better than humans. Now they just need to understand better, which doesn't seem far off.

Maybe you just work for a bad self-driving car startup?

Vue is a reactive JS framework, similar to React or Angular. It's lighter weight, but comes with less built in. It's a very nice framework to work with, easy to get up and running, but powerful enough to build a full featured web app.

People are welcome to downvote my comment, though the quote you cite is referring to links, not as much comments.

> The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? There are two ways to do that: by pointing out some consideration that hadn't previously been mentioned, and by giving more information about the topic, perhaps from personal experience. Whereas comments like "LOL!" or worse still, "That's retarded!" teach us nothing.

As you may have noticed, there are a couple of comments regarding the use of the .ai TLD. A legitimate conversation can be held on whether or not .ai should be generalized for "Artificial Intelligence", possibly to the detriment of people in Anguilla.

The only site on the internet that will meet your requirements of "a place where I can grok and find only useful info" is one you write yourself. What you consider to be "useful info" is going to differ from what other people think.

And, of course, you should consider that your comment is, if anything, a more egregious example of a useless comment, detracting from the conversation.

You can hide comments with the [-] symbol. Use it.

True, but that's also true of any XML, RSS, Atom, HTML, etc. Websites abuse HTML all the time, and there's nothing saying that just because something is transferred with application/atom+xml that it will be valid or follow the spec.

It's more of a social agreement. If you get a JSON object from a place you expect a JSON Feed and it has a title and items, then it'll probably work, even if it omits other things.

Slightly off topic, but this may be one of the first cases of a reversible domain.

https://google.ai/ and https://ai.google/ both point to the same page.

Not Windows Forms, no. But it is pretty easy to make cross platform .Net apps using Xamarin Mac. Business logic can share code, though UI likely needs its own code for each platform.

This post has been flagged with 30 points and 24 comments. Doesn't this just validate the premise of the post?

Except that her device is completely different than the spinners of today. The child in the photo is holding one in her right hand.

I tried:

    https://github.com/dosaygo-coder-0/urizip/commit/cb2bfd2e04e8b814943e42a5bf87eeff31a77126

Got

    kl9oo67XTkQCETxduLJSW5iUfSNh5pW6iDuhqKmzprOoJCaUYmMo5M7kiMaYxrBRjTQsWzqDks9BlBQWEQKsrKImrQU

Which is longer.

Also "OK" isn't a great commit message for almost every commit:

https://github.com/dosaygo-coder-0/urizip/commits/master

Stopping talking because the questioning has taken a turn can be used as evidence of your guilt. Salinas v. Texas found:

"When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question."[0]

Combined with some circumstantial evidence or a mistaken eye witness, you've given the police reason to start building a case against you. Unless you're the one reporting the crime, think twice before you volunteer information to police.

(Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc., just interested in this stuff.)

[0] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/salinas-v-texas/

Considering it's a debate about health care and insurance, I'd say the health of the individual is relevant.

They actually are underwritable. Not everyone utilizes wellness visits, just like not everyone gets an x-ray, in a given year. Insurance companies can price in the expected value of wellness visits based on the participation rate.

Therefore, it fits the definition of insurance, even though the likelihood of a claim is relatively high.

I'm pretty sure most people with an existing condition would prefer not to have it at all than to cost insurance companies more and have that covered.

It's not a free lunch. They paid the admission fee with their health.

Regular wellness checkups are also not a free lunch. They're priced into the policies. You absolutely can insure against regularly consumed services, as long as the premium is enough to cover it and to do the underwriting for the unexpected expenses. Look at dental or vision insurance. The vast majority of what they cover are regular wellness visits.

Putting that aside, free wellness visits are also in the interest of the insurer. It's far cheaper to prevent disease or to treat it early than it is to deal with it later. Those savings from this so-called "free lunch" ends up right back in their pockets.

Because a single payer would, by definition, cover everyone.

Private insurance companies and employers (the two places most Americans get their health insurance from) may not want to pay for the higher costs associated with higher risk people like this. Employers would be especially susceptible to this sort of discrimination if proposed legislation allowing employers to demand genetic tests of their employees passes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0...

There's no need for an Origin header and the SSL cert would match. That's the whole premise of domain fronting. You send the request to whatever IP resloves as Google.com, but when you make the request, your Host header is for the AppEngine instance. Because of the way Google (and AWS and I'm sure many others) route requests, they don't care that you're using the cert for Google.com, they just happily route you to whatever Host you specify. You may have to spoof some headers to do the 101 Switching Protocol correctly, but you have all the information you need to do it.