First aid is what keeps the casualty alive long enough for second aid. Second aid is trained medical profesionals working in a medical setting, so a hospital or even the ambulace crew that take over after you stopped the casualty leaking too much.

Great now! I’m in jail!

I’m pretty sure the supreme court ruling was carefully worded to not require them to bring him back, but ‘fascilitate’ his return, which gave them enough wiggle room to say they wouldn’t stop his return, so they were in conpliance. It was a lower court tgat required his return, the supreme court ruling overrode that.

Punctuation is important? (maybe)
Punctuation is. Important! (certainly)
Punctuation: is important. (note to self)
Punctuation is “import ant” (what?)

Also, that shop that sells completely random stuff (chandeliers, dolls, weird statues, horrible carpets and so much more junk), never seen it open but have been there for like at least 30 years.

We had one of those. It turns out it was owned by a rental agent, and he just used it to store the random stuff he’d use to furnish appartments with to rent out.

This is an interesting prompt. Critically it seems like you definitely aren’t omnipotent, so whilst you can try to influence and teach the new inhabitants, there’s nothing stopping them simply ignoring you and doing something else.

Rather than some wanting to just not contribute, I’d be more concerned by a group deciding to focus their efforts on building weapons and simply taking what they want from others.

Fully automated luxury gay space communism is certainly an ideal, but it is extremely vulnerable to hostile forces until it gets large enough and willing enough to excert eqivalent force in return. Hostile forces can be military, ideological, or resource limit based. Responding to all of those, is a massive challenge.

It’s not for him, it’s for everyone who had to survive.

The trouble is, you have to account for transport costs that way. Either to bring it to them, or them to it. A Redundant Array of Inexpensive Decapitators (or RAID array) gives you higher throughput, better resilience to component failures and can lower your total costs versus building a single entity that is robust enough to be as reliable.

I am, of course joking. Unfortunately, just eliminating billionaires, cathartic though it might be, wouldn’t actually solve any problems as it doesn’t meaningfully redistribute that wealth, or stop someone else accumulating in the same way, only with better personal security. It’s going to take changing the system at a much deeper, more fundamental, level than that. At the point it becomes actively undesirable to the individual to accumulate that much wealth, and I don’t think mere threats to their physical safety will do that, you’ve effectively decapitated capitalism.

I did the same, pressed on it for the text, got sent straight to the video, and swore under my breath in admiration. In the current climate what he’s done isn’t risk free, despite the fact it a) should be, and b) shouldn’t be needed in the first place.

Nothing but respect for people calling out the crimes of thus administration, and when it’s someone with an unrelated platform and an audience, so much the better.

Thanks, this is a really handy tool. Kniwing the information was being withheld ‘just because’ was really rankling me. Now, could you just add a quick feature to read their minds and tell me why they down voted me? ;)

How can someone write a letter that does not contain the addressee?

It’s easier to bulk send them this way. No need for a mail merge, just spam it out to everyone on your list. Efficiency!

This is not the happy timeline.

Whist I would very much like a news source that just presents the unbiased facts, no such thing can exist as all of what we consume is mediated by humans, from story selection, to information gathering, to how that information is filtered, presented and finally how the reader processes it.

Even choosing to use the word ‘bribe’, the phrase ‘buying goodwill’ or just calling them ‘donations’ would be an editorial decision that would influence the reader. Depending on the reader each of those phrases would inspire different opinions. A reader who is more disposed to being positive about this administration may find ‘buying goodwill’ to be just about tolerable journalism, ‘bribe’ to be outragious slander and ‘donation’ perfectly reasonable and accurate. A more left reader would probably consider ‘donation’ to be unacceptable whitewashing, ‘buying goodwill’ to be euphamistic, and ‘bribe’ to fit their world view best. Therevis no phrasing that would avoid an emotional response, so either this can’t be reported, or the publication chooses to do so in line with their own biases.

There is also a constant tension between presenting just the bare facts of the current matter, and contextualising them for the reader, who may not be fully versed on the matter. How that contextualisation is done is also going to affect the reader’s perception.

There is, however, a very large difference between the presenting the information with some bias, and “a biased news source that tells you what you want to hear whether all the facts are there or not.” I would agree with you that the latter is a “rag”, though I would classify it that way for the willingness to draw a conclusion unsupported by fact, rather than necesarily for having bias. All sources, even your own senses, will give you a biased view of events. The critical thing is to acknowledge that and understand the bias you’re being presented with. Trying to make sure you consume sources with a variety of different biases is a good way to try to balance that, though I personally find it hard to stomach anything further than moderately right of my personal views anymore.

Like the error you used to get at boot on AT vintage machines “Keyboard not detected. Press F1 to continue”.

To be fair, back in the day I had plenty of times where Linux refused to recognise the harddrive it had just booted from. Computers are wierd, and their software is built by humans.

I feel that, but in the opposite direction. I’m used to Linux, so the weirdness of Windows is alien to me, and every time I have to try to fix a family member’s computer (“hey you’re good with computers, aren’t you? Could you take a look at a problem I’m having?” I’m a sap like that) I feel absolutely baffled as to what’s broken and how it’s even possible for that to break in the furst place.

I think your points are well made, but there is another possibility to consider, and that is deliberate language choice for effect. They certainly could have simply called it a bribe, and that would be true enough, but in my opinion lacks ‘punch’. We’re so used to that sort of behaviour that many people would pretty much just go “yup, that’s expected” and move on. By deliberately, and somewhat archly, using understatement, the reader goes “Buying good will?? That’s not buying good will, that’s bribery! Buying good will shouldn’t even be a thing!” thus neatly bypassing the first level of cynasism that a simpler statement would run in to.

I’m not going to say that us definitely what happened here, but looks quite deliberate to me. Language can be weaponised in many different ways, for different causes.

For proper user authentication the model always used to be that the user should present three things: something they were (a username for instance), something they knew (a password), and something they had (a OTP from a device, or a biometric). The idea being that, even if a remote attacker got hold of the username and password, they didn’t have the final factor, and if the user was incapacitated or otherwise forced to provide a biometric, they wouldn’t necessarily supply the password (or on really secure systems, they’d use a ‘panic’ password that would appear to work, but hide sensitive information and send an alert to the security team).

Now we seem to be rushing into a system where you have only two factors, the thing you have, namely your phone, and the other thing you have, namely a fingerprint or your face. Notably you can’t really change either of those, especially your biometrics, so they’re entirely useless for security. Instead your phone should require a biometric and a password to unlock. The biometric being ‘the thing you are’, the phone ‘the thing you have’, and the password being 'the thing you know.

So, yes, I’m entirely against fingerprint unlocking.

You… you don’t? Surely there’s some mistake, have you checked down the back of your cupboard? Sometimes they fall down there. Where else do you keep your internet?

Appologies, I’m tired and that made more sense in my head.

i’d keep it or sell it to a collector most likely.

Or jump in the air and spread yourself across the scenery if you’re one of the ‘lucky’ ones who finds shell that is still viable.

That, or ICE kidnap him when he tries to return because he’s ‘obviously’ in league with the gang.

Parks are great, but unless they’re directly outside the houses where I can keep an eye on what’s happening they’re not as safe or convenient. Being able to send the kids into the garden to run off some energy whilst I’m in the house doing something, and being reasonably confident that they’re safe is a huge benefit.

That’s certainly not impossible with a bit of sensible planning around how housing is laid out, putting clusters of housing directly around a shared green space, but it is rather challenging to retrofit in existing conurbations, and impossible in more spread out communities. The American style of huge featureless lawns surrounding the house right up to the property boundary are pretty awful, but the more European style of a bit of lawn surrounded by flower beds and maybe trees is rather better.