Well. That’s it. Get the flamethrowers. Time to burn down the Amazon.
No. Not the one that’s already burning. The other one.
Well. That’s it. Get the flamethrowers. Time to burn down the Amazon.
No. Not the one that’s already burning. The other one.
My understanding is that they are focusing on adding in “AI” features in a big way, and that’s why they cut development on the other work. 🫤
Who was it intended toward?
Someone that hasn’t watched TV since the 1980’s? ChatGPT, for when someone invariably turns it loose on the fediverse?
It’s not niche as a concept. Your explanation is known worldwide.
Its inclusion in the discourse is unwarranted.
Next time you feel the need to add a disclaimer that justifies/explains/adds caveats to racist language: fucking don’t.
I like to look up stuff, even if I’m not remotely qualified to understand the results.
Tartrazine induces structural and functional aberrations and genotoxic effects in vivo
Is tartrazine really safe? In silico and ex vivo toxicological studies in human leukocytes: a question of dose
My (thin) grasp of things is that even though it’s a food additive, it’s not heavily studied, and not at higher doses, but the two studies above don’t paint a great picture. And slathering it on your skin is definitely more than you’d come into contact with than what’s needed to color food.
So, yeah - not a parlor trick I’d do to gross out my friends.
The article I read mentioned this person has co-morbidities. Presumably, that’s why their symptoms are worse/they even got tested. Perhaps this means that it only weakly infects humans (currently, anyway). Hence the lack of prior detection.
I’m sure we’ll start to see more community cases. Hopefully that won’t translate to the virus mutating further in ways that make it more infectious or harmful.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
This might sound tin foil hat-y, but the doctor - Petrak - is a contractor without an incentive to complete the work in a timely or efficient manner. I can’t see why he would push for a speedy closure.
That plus a hospital that doesn’t want to be sued for malpractice, plus a government agency where they would rather check boxes and maximize their metrics*, than consider the damage of their policies to innocent people is a recipe for torturing the public.
* I would assume they’re going for number of investigations, and not efficiency. They probably count raw numbers, and do what they can to catch every little thing - thoroughness can be good, mind you - because finding something is “proof” of their efficacy.
It’s a shame more families don’t sue in these circumstances to make the involved parties check themselves to ensure they aren’t causing more harm than good.
Plus an advertisement, 3 paragraphs about Ian’s age, an advertisement, 4 more about the show that are just an advertisement for the show, an advertisement, a segue about the importance of bone health as you age and why the author likes Dasuquin senior supplements to keep himself feeling young, an advertisement, and finally that the fat suit maybe helped.
You connect with someone, pool your resources and efforts, and live together.
If nothing else, you’ll have someone to miss you when you choke to death.
But seriously, all we have is each other. Some folks may never partner up romantically, but they can still build their own sense of community and family. Cooking for 2 is easier than cooking for 1, and cooking for 4 is even easier still. According to realtor.com’s July rental report, a single bedroom apartment in the U.S. averages $1600, and a 2 bedroom is $1900. Splitting that 2 bedroom with a roommate is way more economical than going it alone. Paying bills, planning things, having a vehicle break down, needing to share housework — Life is just easier with community. Many hands make light work.
I’m not trying to paint a rosy picture. It seems right now that capitalism has “won.” With rare exception we’re all peasants, and we all face the same grim reality of being captive to systems that lower our quality of life and increase our challenges to strip every ounce of value from us and the environment around us. Maybe together, we can make it suck less, or at least try to.
I don’t disagree with the points you’re making in terms of military explanations.
I think the U.S. definitely wants to provide Taiwan with all manner of drones, as they can use that as a test bed for their own drone efforts. Even if it’s unlikely to actually occur, I think the specter of China getting involved militarily is an opportunity the U.S. is keen to exploit that will allow them to deploy and test drone systems on the dime of one of their strategic partners, rather than solely at their own expense.
But I also think that China is working on a diplomatic/economic win in Taiwan.
With the recent passage of the … oh, I can’t remember the name of it … the law that allows China to arrest people who criticize China online that will apply to Chinese citizens who live/work in Taiwan, or to Taiwanese citizens who have reason to visit China, it means that there is a pall of fear over criticizing China in Taiwan.
If folks can’t criticize China, it skews the narrative in Taiwan. A few more laws like that, some social/election influence campaigns (in the U.S. and Taiwan), and I could see a gradual undoing of Taiwanese-U.S. relations, and perhaps even a voluntary joining of PRC in a few decades.
I’m sure, though, that the U.S. is doing the same thing in Taiwan, to try to keep the relationship tight. So it sorta comes down to who can do the best data mining, influence campaigning, and crafty diplomacy.
All armchair speculation on my part, but that’s how I think it’ll shake out. Less of a military conquest, and more of a cultural conquest.
I was editing my comment as you were typing yours. But - yeah.
The supremacy clause wouldn’t even have the chance to be applied, because the case wouldn’t ever leave the state.
Purely hypothetically now, I was not so much thinking of Roe or the reasons used to undo that decision being applied here, but just any spurious legal justification they could come up with.
I wouldn’t put it past them to pull something like that, but the bit about conflict between the constitutions (plus another commenter’s input) caused me to question on what grounds a case can be appealed from a state Supreme Court to SCOTUS, and it looks like there isn’t a path for that here.
SCOTUS still can overrule a state constitution, but they can’t pick up this case, as far as I can tell. There just doesn’t seem to be a path that leads to them. I’ll amend my comment.
Ah, you’re right. I did a bit more digging, and in it appears that unless the case involved contradictory interpretations of the state vs U.S. constitution at each level of it’s trial progression, the case cannot be appealed to SCOTUS.
My supposition at the end of my previous comment wouldn’t come to fruition - at least not as the result of an appeal to this case.
I’ll amend my comment.
That’s a valid point for ‘normal’ times. But I don’t think these are normal times. I also don’t think the SCOTUS would approach their rulings in a manner that respects anything other than the agenda of the majority. I earnestly believe that they would dispense with any sort of legal precedent or sense of decorum to enforce their will.
A fine reasoning, if that were in any way the discussion at hand.
The legality or illegality of abortion is immaterial here. The case in question is about privacy, but specifically we’re talking about whether the Federal government can interpret the Montana state constitution (they can).
My “I could see…” was a reference to a reinterpretation of laws/precedent/whatever by the SCOTUS to overrule the state Supreme Court decision. We’ve seen a number of questionable rulings from this SCOTUS, and I would not doubt they would find any justification to legislate from the bench on what seems to be a pet cause of the majority.
I think the federal constitution supersedes state constitutions, though.
Ah - it does! I had to look it up. It’s called the Supremacy Clause (Wikipedia). It’s not uniformly applied because many states aren’t going to bother with enforcing federal laws they disagree with. (States with legal weed, for instance.) But the federal government does have the right to poke holes in state constitutions if they deem it necessary and want to.
Edit: While I could still see SCOTUS being malevolent using a thin pretext, it appears this case cannot be taken by SCOTUS, because (as far as I can tell), it doesn’t meet the requirements for SCOTUS to take it.
I could see SCOTUS taking the case, ruling horribly, the rest of the federal government not taking up enforcement, but Montana lawmakers running amok with their newfound ability to step on desperate teenagers, because SCOTUS said they could.
A few weeks ago, a mom was at the hardware store with her young son – he was about five years old.
For some reason, we crossed paths a few times, And each time she was talking with her son about the things they were buying in the projects that they were buying them for. But what Caught my attention first was he asked her ‘What if we can’t do it?’ and she responded with ‘Well then we learned how because we can figure it out.’
This woman was endlessly, encouraging towards her son, and it was clear that she was setting him up to have an attitude of feeling like he was capable of tackling things in life. Which is something that I didn’t get us a kid - I was often told that I couldn’t do things or the things were beyond my capability and that if my mom didn’t know how to do something that it was basically impossible for me to figure out how to do it as well.
I was so impressed by their interaction, that when I saw her later while I was checking out, I actually said something to her and after she figured out I wasn’t trying to pick her up, she took a moment and like… just looked satisfied. I was happy with the interaction.
Beyond the fact that I mostly grew up without a father and my mother was very self focused to the point that it was pretty detrimental to me, I also grew up with undiagnosed ADHD that I only learned about in my early 40s. I am constantly discovering ways that I feel broken in the world, so you are not alone.
You are not a machine and you have the right to happiness. I hope you find it.
I recommend therapy, if you haven’t tried it, and if it’s not working, I suggest different therapists, or different types of therapy. It’s okay to tell a therapist you’re not getting much out of their style/your relationship with them, and ask for their assessment of what you should be looking for. Then go look at that. Keep trying until you find something that clicks.
If it helps, in your shoes I would view it as a continuation of your parental duties. When she moves out, or maybe has kids of her own, you can continue the relationship with her and your grandchildren as your genuine, authentic, and - perhaps - happy self.
I mean. It’s not magic. Even I could run a basic computer vision system from a raspberry pi and a webcam. They could easily come up with a system that returns confidence percentages for bags vs humans. Assuming the baggage isn’t coming in too warm, they could have an IR thermal camera that stops the line if it detects any temperature over a certain threshold. They could also use other tests, like two pictures a few seconds apart to see if something is moving on its own on the belt. I’m sure there are even more tests than the ones above, let alone design changes that could disincentivize folks doing dumb stuff, or making their dumb stuff easier to spot - like putting the end of the return conveyer behind plexiglass, so the person is visible on the conveyer before they disappear into the wall.
All of the above are not 100% solutions, but taken together, they can establish a reasonable confidence level they’re not about to intake something that isn’t a bag.
Devils advocate: It may not be “pee tapes”, it may be video of him sexually assaulting a Miss Universe candidate.