If it’s dangerous to repair it, it’s dangerous to own. That’s the domain for regulations by the government, not arbitrary software restrictions by software manufacturers.
They don’t implement these to keep you safe. They do it purely to make more money.
Before my comment I want to make clear I agree with the conclusion that abortion bans are clearly killing women at statistically significant rates.
That said, the stats reporting here doesn’t make sense:
Among Hispanic women, the rate of women dying while pregnant, during childbirth or soon after increased from 14.5% in 2019 to 18.9% in 2022. Rates among white women nearly doubled — from 20% to 39.1%. And Black women, who historically have higher chances of dying while pregnant, during childbirth or soon after, saw their rates go from 31.6% to 43.6%.
There’s no way 14.5% of Hispanic women in Texas who got pregnant died some time during pregnancy, during child birth, or soon after. That would be unprecedented for any time since the advent of modern medicine. And the chart above this paragraph does not agree with it either. It’s a chart of deaths per hundred THOUSAND live births, and the numbers for all racial groups are all under 100, so less than 0.1%.
The way it’s stated also doesn’t suggest it’s a percent increase because it says it rose from 14.5% to 18.9%. I can’t figure out what they’re trying to say, but they should definitely have been more careful with presenting the numbers.
Quantum field theory conserves mass-energy, so the new mass is coming from the energy in the Higgs field itself. It settles to a lower energy state and basically transfers that energy as mass to all of the particles that couple with it. Since it’s mass-energy and not just mass that generates gravitational distortions, the large-scale gravitational evolution of the universe probably won’t change, as this just moves things around a bit. It’s not creating energy out of nothing.
If the pig option included immune suppression drugs for the rest of your life, or for like 10 years until it wore out and you had to have another major surgery to replace it, mechanical valve plus blood thinners and a yearly blood draw sounds like the much better deal. I know blood thinners come with their own long term effects, but nothing compared to immune suppression.
A lot of the far right are millennials and Gen Z. While the proportions in different generations are different, this isn’t purely a generational thing. The implied message is that we can “wait them out,” but that is basically just the same as doing nothing. We can’t do nothing. We have to motivate people to vote, and then get them to volunteer and have them get others to vote.
If that’s what the map would look like if younger generations voted like 65+, then go get those people voting so we get that map next election.
It’s also missing the punchline where they’re both bulls, so they don’t produce milk.
The judge also noted that the cited study itself mentions that GitHub Copilot “rarely emits memorised code in benign situations.”
“Rarely” is not zero. This looks like it’s opening a loophole to copying open source code with strong copyleft licenses like the GPL:
Depending on how good your lawyers are, 2 is optional. And bingo! All the OSS code you want without those pesky restrictive licenses.
In fact, I wonder if there’s a way to automate step 2. Some way to analyze an OSS GitHub repo to generate inputs for Copilot that will then regurgitate that same repo.
The problem is the battery, and how they have a finite lifespan. Usually that’s about 400 recharge cycles, and after that the batteries are finished.
And if you can’t replace it, then it’s the end of the line for the gadget, and it’s tossed onto the e-waste pile.
It is so incredibly aggravating that it’s 2024 and unreplaceable batteries are still a thing. I guess Apple didn’t get enough shade when they did this in phones so it just became industry-standard. It’s both horrible for the environment and for the consumer.
I guarantee the engineers could easily make it replaceable for little to no added cost, they’re just specifically instructed by business leaders not to.
The core is about change. To accept climate change means they have to make changes to their lifestyle, and they don’t like having to change. Beyond that, it’s rationalizations and bad faith arguments from the usual grifters and corporations layered on top of that to justify the position they chose emotionally.
next year when the Trump tax cuts expire
It’s worth repeating again that the middle class Trump tax cuts expire next year. The Trump tax cuts for the wealthy have no expiration date and are permanent.
Also, they’re not “Trump” tax cuts but Republican tax cuts, but at this point the distinction doesn’t really mean anything anymore since Trump has completely taken over the party.
I don’t recommend making significant changes to activity levels at the same time as making diet changes. Weight loss comes from changing what you eat. Exercise is absolutely necessary for a healthy lifestyle, but it is not the major factor in weight loss. And increasing exercise behaviors can destabilize eating habits, making it harder to stick to any good changes you do make with either diet or exercise.
Disambiguation page says it’s also sometimes used as another name for the egg in the basket dish.
Can’t download on Firefox for Android. Why does it require a desktop browser?
I think that’s actually good UX from a safety standpoint. It means the button is “idempotent”: doing an operation the first time puts it in a state, and then doing it again leaves it still in that state.
If you’re in a moment of panic and want the brake on, you might push the button a bunch of times in quick succession to “be sure.” If it were a regular button, this would rapidly toggle it on and off, which would leave it in an uncertain state after you pressed it so fast. This way it turns on and stays active until you are ready to turn it off, and then you do another idempotent operation to turn it off. I don’t think all buttons should be like this, but I think it’s a good design decision for a button used in an “emergency.”
That strongly depends on the job. If the company has to follow regulations to meet some security posture, wiping the OS (and all the security tools and configuration set up by IT) to put your own favored OS without matching the security requirements could wind up with you getting fired.
Language is magic for these people, specifically the right grouping of words is supposed to be an incantation to get them out of social responsibility, and the wrong collection of words is what binds them.
Since the state regulates “driving” of vehicles, no sovcit drives. They all “move” vehicles or “transport” vehicles.
It’s ridiculous, because law revolves around actions independent of how anyone in specific describes those actions, but that’s the mindset of these people. Viewing their beliefs as a kind of word Tetris has at least helped me wrap my head around what could possibly give them some of their strange notions of law.
No laws have been changed. Court decisions are not considered the passage of a law, so ex post facto doesn’t apply. Changes to how laws are interpreted don’t factor into ex post facto considerations.
Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It’s basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn’t apply here.
Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there’s a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court’s decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.
This makes sense to me, and is in line with recent interpretations about AI-generated artwork. Basically, if a human directly creates something, it’s protected by copyright. But if someone makes a thing that itself creates something, that secondary work is not protected by copyright. AI-generated artwork is an extreme example of this, but if that’s the framework, applying it to data newly generated by any code seems reasonable.
This wouldn’t/shouldn’t apply to something like compression, where you start with a work directly created by someone, apply an algorithm to transform it into a compressed state, and then apply another algorithm to transform the data back into the original work. That original work was still created by someone and so should be protected by copyright. But a novel generation of data, like the game state in memory during the execution of the game’s programming, was never directly created by someone, and so isn’t protected.