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.
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.
-
"Incitement" is a long-standing, widely-accepted exception to the first amendment not mentioned in the amendment itself. Just because the literal text of the document does not include an exception does not mean our legal system can not invent one. While I generally agree that speech should not be regulated outside of extreme circumstance, this is a very common human thing to want.
-
No argument on the second amendment. I do believe that more needs to be done here, but banning firearms - effectively or otherwise - is simply not an option in the States.
-
Your freedoms stop where another's begin. I don't see this as a reduction in freedom, it's a protection of the freedoms of those who are being protested against. Defending against violence is not, strictly, an attack on freedoms.
-
See previous point. Religious freedom must end where another's life and liberty begin. While I generally agree that individuals and religious institutions should be allowed to freely practice their religion, this must be tempered by the individual rights of others. With specific respect to the LGBTQ+ community, many religious groups actively dehumanize and some actively promote violence against them.
I would argue that this situation ultimately boils down to a lack of understanding of authoritarian rule and the damage that can occur because of it. The American education system is largely gutted when it comes to history - our own and otherwise - and I believe this trend toward authoritarianism is largely due to that - and persistent class warfare by the Capitalist class, but that's a different conversation, I think.
People don't really learn about what happened in Nazi Germany, or Fascist Italy, or Imperial Japan, or the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or British India, or probably dozens of other examples I can't think of off the top of my head.
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.
I'm totally okay with those people thinking abortion is wrong and not getting then. I'm not okay with it when those people try to force their ideals on my niece or my sister.
I'd be just as not okay with it if the situation was reversed and we were somehow requiring women to get abortions for whatever reason. Just stay the fuck out of people's medical decisions.
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.
This is why I taught my parents to just hit the Win key to open the start menu and just start typing what they want. Usually, that gives them what they want in a couple characters.
No, this is actually a dichotomy. First Past the Post mathematically trends towards a two candidate system as its stable state. This isn't some psychological bullshit, it's math. The way our system works you never vote for the thing you like; you vote against the thing you don't. Doing anything else is literally handing the election to the side you don't like. It's called the Spoiler Effect and it happens basically everywhere in the US where FPtP is used.
The place you vote for who you want is in the primaries (or their equivalent in your state), not elections. If you're not participating in those, you get no say in who gets run and bitching about it does nothing. Hell, even then you barely get any say since, as far as I'm aware, both the DNC and RNC actually select their candidate based on a vote of some inner circle bigwigs, not the actual results of any of the state-by-state pageant shows.
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.
As long as the US continues to use first past the post for voting on these things, voting for the lesser of two evils is the only actual option we have. Voting independent in these races is effectively throwing your vote away at best.
WTB proportional representation for the House. No need to gerrymander shit when there are no congressional districts to gerrymander.
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.