I made it a lot farther before I just couldn’t anymore. I was kinda hoping for some kind of real self-reflection or ability to further understand the mindset of people like him but it’s just the same “sigma grindset” bullshit they always spout.
I generally agree with the stance that undercover cops should be allowed to lie, since failing to do so would defeat the purpose of being undercover. However, an officer actively arresting someone using their authority as a police officer should be required to be as truthful as possible with the person detained.
I’ll stop saying “defund the police” when “protect and serve” is actually what they do.
I’ve seen this claim made multiple times but the articles in question make no mention of it - including this one, unless I’m blind. Do you have a source for this claim?
Considering both include convulsions and cardiac arrest can be accompanied by agonal breathing, I don’t think you can definitively state this.
Smith also resisted breathing for as long as he could at the beginning of the procedure and I think that needs to be taken into account. I won’t say they absolutely didn’t botch his execution, but I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence to that effect.
A pure nitrogen environment does not prevent the exhalation of carbon dioxide (source).
From the Wikipedia article on Inert Gas Asphyxiation:
When humans breathe in an asphyxiant gas, such as pure nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, methane, or any other physiologically inert gas, they exhale carbon dioxide without re-supplying oxygen.
This leads to asphyxiation (death from lack of oxygen) without the painful and traumatic feeling of suffocation (the hypercapnic alarm response, which in humans arises mostly from carbon dioxide levels rising)
Unconsciousness in cases of accidental asphyxia can occur within one minute.
Loss of consciousness may be accompanied by convulsions[9] and is followed by cyanosis and cardiac arrest.
tl;dr - literally everything that happened in the execution was precisely as expected. Smith did not suffer and was not conscious after the first few minutes of the procedure.
Speaking of sea urchins, I learned a while ago they like to wear shells and such like little hats to protect them from the sun. It’s adorable.
Also, an aquarium 3D printed some hats for their urchins. It’s pretty great.
There’s nothing wrong with OCI Images. If you’re concerned about the security of Docker (which, imo, you should be) there are other container runtimes that don’t have its security tradeoffs (e.g. podman).
The short version is that the creators of this API are doing something more secure than what the client wants to do.
A reasonable analogy would be trying to access a building locked by a biometric scanner vs. a guard looking for a piece of paper with a password on it. In the first case, only people entered into the scanner can get in (this is the cookie scenario). In the second case, anyone with a piece of paper with the right password on it will be let in (this is the Bearer token scenario).
More technical version: the API is made more secure because the “HttpOnly” cookie - which, basically, means the cookie’s contents can’t be read with JavaScript in the browser - is used to hold the credentials the server is looking for.
By allowing a third party to access the application, this means you have to allow methods that can be set “client-side” (e.g. via JavaScript in a browser). The most common method is in the “Authorization” HTTP Header - headers are metadata sent along with a request, they include things like the page you’re coming from and cookies associated with the domain. A “Bearer” token is one of the methods specified by the “Authorization” header. It’s usually implemented via passing the authorization credentials prefixed with the word “Bearer” (hence the name) and, often, are static, password-like text.
Basically, because this header has to be settable by a script, that means an attacker/hacker could possibly inject malicious code to steal the tokens because they must, at some point, be accessible.
In this thread, everyone getting caught up on the first toot and not the second where he clarifies his point.
If you step past the initial investment of buying a house, the analogy makes perfect sense. When you rent an apartment, your landlord (the provider) takes care of all the maintenance; you just live there and you get what you get. When you own a home, you take care of all of the maintenance, but you get to set the place up however you like. This isn’t that different from a lot of FOSS out there.
This misunderstands the premise. You cannot intuit someone’s subjective experience of reality because it is impossible for you to experience their experience of reality. You have only what they’re able to explain to you.
To come at this from the other direction, if a friend says to you “I’m having a good day” and does not appear obviously distressed, how could you judge the relative goodness of their day or if it was actually good at all?
I can kinda understand Autism, to an extent. Certain forms of high-functioning autism - like the one I have - are more akin to mild learning disorders. Deliberate practice and effort can mitigate a great deal of the issues.
On the other side, I’ve seen people with more extreme forms of the condition and I can’t imagine having to deal with that. I know I can be difficult to deal with and I work really hard to try to mitigate my shortcomings with others - especially people who don’t know me well - but I pale in comparison to the difficulty of people with more extreme forms of Autism.
In this way, I think ADHD and Autism are probably similar - there’s a spectrum of impact the condition has. The milder forms of the condition may actually feel like a superpower to those that shape themselves to utilize their quirks in their favor. The problem arises when all forms of the condition are considered beneficial when they are demonstrably not.
Hell, even I have problems that no amount of learning can ever overcome. You can’t exactly teach yourself how to pick up on the subconscious body language queues that most people just know inherently. I’m totally blind to that stuff and it makes intense conversations incredibly difficult and a little terrifying.
Look, Birth Ma’am! It’s the Birth Signal!
Just think of how much back and forth must have happened for this person to be so fed up as to include this with a request for publication
Possibly controversial opinion, the left needs a Fox News. A station that just unapologetically pushes liberal talking points and pays newsworthiness the same lip service that Fox does. Fuck this holier than thou bullshit we’ve got going on; fight propaganda with better propaganda.
Getting repeatedly beaten in competitive multiplayer games is just kinda par for the course if you haven’t learned the meta, strategies, etc. If you lack game knowledge and your opponents have that game knowledge, you will mostly lose.
If winning in the game is the only way you find enjoyment in them, then those kinds of games require significant investments of time and energy to “git good”.
I say this as someone who is repeatedly shit on in every game of CoD I’ve ever played and will play in the future. That said, I don’t gain particular enjoyment from winning alone - not that it isn’t fun to win, just that I get just as much enjoyment from other aspects of the game.
It sounds to me, mostly, that these games just don’t really appeal to your idea of what’s fun.
I would fully expect Linux content on any community dedicated to technology (i.e. programmerhumor); the rest is totally understandable. Though, I have to agree with @CarbonIceDragon, I really don’t see as much Linux content as you seem to - granted I use kbin, not lemmy.
I’ve read that Lemmy is a bit more personally curated than kbin, is it possible you’ve just accidentally built yourself a Linux bubble?
I won’t lie. I mostly don’t engage with content I see here. I didn’t do that when I was on Reddit either and mostly for the same reason: I don’t really have much to say and, even when I do have an opinion, I don’t usually want to engage in what’s often a protracted debate about something that will probably just end up being frustrating.
That’s not to say I haven’t had positive experiences on the Fediverse - I’ve had more here than anywhere else - I’m just not particularly motivated most of the time.
Correct. Freedom of Speech does not imply freedom from consequence and only protects you from the government. The State can’t tell you what you’re allowed say and can’t jail you for saying them (outside of a limited band of things that have been thoroughly litigated). However, that does nothing to modify the social contract. If you say something that most people don’t like, they’re going to get you to stop saying it one way or another.