> they don't want to be in the legacy media licensing business.
Isn't that business basically free money? The way I see it, no capital investment is needed. You just need to keep a few accountants and lawyers around to handle occasional licensing paperwork. Am I missing something?
My intention was to chop out everything about the "whites below the eyes" version of it, because it's the "whites above the eyes" variant that is relevant to the discussion above. This kind of analysis is not medical at all, it's "traditional medicine". If "traditional medicine" were real medicine, it wouldn't be called traditional. To call something "Chinese/Japanese medicine" amounts to the same, not real medicine. If "Chinese/Japanese medicine" were real medicine, it would just be called medicine.
Also I said after that quote that it's not scientific, but it nevertheless seems true. That's my editorial take.
I think the people who support Worldcoin do so either on the basis of it being another shitcoin they can make money speculating with, or because they're in Sam's personality cult.
All lowercase signals casual aloofness; it says the situation doesn't meet your bar for formality. It's like Zuckerberg wearing a hoodie when meeting with Wall Street types.
> According to Chinese/Japanese medical [...] when the upper sclera is visible it is said to be an indication of mental imbalance in people such as psychotics, murderers, and anyone rageful. In either condition, it is believed that these people attract accidents and violence.
It might not be scientific but people with this look certainly do freak me out. (FWIW, I haven't seen any images of Sam with these eyes.)
Is that because they want to be in prison, or because they're fuckups who think they can get away with violating the terms of their probation but get caught?
From what I understand he was convicted for second degree murder, specifically "unintentional second-degree murder while attempting to commit felony assault". So he may not have intended for George Floyd to die, but he did intentionally assault George Floyd who died as a result. So that's not intentional premeditated murder, but it's nevertheless a form of murder.
(He was also simultaneously convicted for third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter, but not first-degree murder.)
If you can only think of a single example of the police being excessively violent against a white person, then you are woefully under-informed. I'm not surprised though, I blame the media.
You're [deliberately?] misinterpreting the stated intent of the law. A gun that goes off when dropped is substantially less safe than a gun which doesn't. People who buy guns are in fact justified in considering such factors.
I think there's a real case to be made that the Californian law is duplicitous and is actually intended to reduce the availability of handguns in California, but that's not the point being raised here. The point is that for some reason Californian cops are exempt from from the law. That's like exempting cops from the lawn dart ban, it makes no sense.
California's Unsafe Handgun Act is ostensibly intended to protect consumers from cheaply manufactured handguns that might malfunction or otherwise be unsafe to operate.
Here is California's Attorney General explaining it:
> “California’s commonsense gun safety laws save lives, and the Unsafe Handgun Act is no exception,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Accidental shootings are preventable. The fact that children under five are the most likely victims makes these accidental gun deaths even more tragic and inexcusable. As weapons become faster, more powerful, and more deadly, this risk only increases. Flooding the marketplace with unsafe semiautomatic pistols that do not meet necessary safety requirements poses a serious threat to public health and safety, especially for children and young adults.”
> The UHA was originally enacted over two decades ago in response to the proliferation of low-cost, cheaply made handguns that posed consumer safety risks. Under the UHA, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) compiles and maintains a Roster of Certified Handguns that meet certain public safety requirements. Generally, a handgun must appear on the roster to be sold by a California firearm dealer.
> When the UHA was first enacted, revolvers and pistols were required to have safety devices and pass drop safety and firing tests at independent laboratories in order to be added to the roster. [...] The UHA has since been amended, adding additional safety requirements for semiautomatic pistols including that a new semiautomatic pistol must have:
> A chamber load indicator that indicates if the pistol is loaded; A magazine disconnect mechanism that prevents the pistol from firing when the magazine is not inserted; and Microstamping capabilities that allow law enforcement to trace a shell casing to the pistol that fired it.
So this law is ostensibly intended to protect people who buy handguns and those around them. But cops are exempt, because... cops never drop their guns?
> To have less incentives, you’d actually have to pay politicians more
This theory presumes that when people have more money, their desire to have even more money diminishes. This presumption is not true.
(It might be somewhat true for common sorts of people who find pleasure in simple things and only want enough money to satisfy their basic material needs (food, shelter, medical care). But it's definitely not true when you're talking about people with high levels of ambition, which includes virtually all politicians.)
Prop 22 was contrary to the interests of professional drivers, but probably in line with the interests of riders who benefit from drivers being exploited. When push comes to shove, a whole lot of people choose cheap service over their publicly espoused principles.
For evidence of this, consider how many suburban boomers are eager to hire illegal immigrants to do lawn work around their McMansion for less than minimum wage. Most would probably tell you that minimum wage laws are good or that illegal immigrants should be deported (one or the other, depending on what side of the aisle they're on...) but when push comes to shove they both choose the lowest bidding contractor to do their yardwork. After all, they aren't yard-workers, just like most Californians aren't uber drivers.
> I am intrigued how often people with the attitude that if you aren't don't anything wrong you shouldn't mind being observed apply that philosophy in only one direction. I see people who are upset that Snowden would leak and provide visibility into government actions, but don't blink that the revealed actions were actually the government spying on its own citizens. So governments are entitled to privacy, but their citizens are not?
I am strongly in the pro individual privacy camp FWIW, but I'm bored so I'll take a stab at steel-manning the premise that governments are entitled to privacy while individual people are not:
One of the obligations of governments is military defense. Governments are required to protect their people and the reality of war necessitates the keeping of some secrets. Failure to recognize this reality would constitute an abdication of their duty as a government. On the other hand, private persons are not permitted to wage war (this is why governments are obliged to defend their people, because they forbid people from doing it themselves.) Since people are not allowed to wage war on their own, the "realities of war" justification for governments keeping secrets doesn't justify people keeping personal secrets.
Rebuttal to the above: throughout history and particularly in the 20th century, tens of millions of people were killed by their own government. While governments may need to keep some secrets to effectively defend their population against external threats, people also need the right to keep secrets from their government to defend themselves against that domestic threat, which is every bit as real and concerning as the external threats.
Exactly. A program running as the user can change the user's desktop configuration to launch a hacked browser instead of the browser installed by the system. It can also edit PATH and then wrap sudo and get root access the next time you use it, or fuck with you a thousand other ways.
The number of ways I might have been pwned and not known about it is basically infinite. Why should I prioritize replacing X11 over any other hypothetical threat for which I have no evidence that I'm at particular risk of? Nobody has photographed my house keys and made copies that I know of. Should I re-key all my locks just to be extra safe? I could replace my front door with an armored door too.. but a burglar would just come in through a window instead so what would be the point?
There's no point armoring your front door unless you also put bars on all your windows, and there's no point adopting wayland for security unless you fix all the other security problems with running malicious software on the GNU/Linux desktop too. And miss me with the QubesOS/flatpack/etc suggestions, my days of playing amateur sysadmin are over I just want to use my computer, not tinker with experimental desktop administration.
I used MacOS for a few years but when it came time to get a new computer I switched back to Linux because nothing actually worked better in MacOS, and a few things worked worse. I think the best advantage to MacOS is knowing you'll have drivers, but that's a moot point for me because I buy hardware I know will work well with Linux. The "switch to Apple for things to work" narrative is a big meme.
If you have malware running with your user permissions, your entire browser can be swapped out with a hacked version that keylogs you. The entire GNU/Linux desktop security model falls to pieces the moment you have malware running with your user permissions, there's a sword of Damocles hanging above you by a meter long thread of silk and Wayland proposes to replace one centimeter of that string with a steel cable. Great, 99 cm of that string is still silk thread so nothing has changed.
Anyway to echo beanjuiceII's point, number of times I've been pwned by an X keylogger: Zero.
Pulseaudio is buggy to this day, and switching to Pipewire is most often the easiest way to fix problems with audio, particularly bluetooth audio. They're both meant to do the same thing, but using the same exact drivers Pipewire just works better. This is why all the major distros are switching to Pipewire; a transition which hasn't earned the ire of the users who are supposedly mad at anything new.
Isn't that business basically free money? The way I see it, no capital investment is needed. You just need to keep a few accountants and lawyers around to handle occasional licensing paperwork. Am I missing something?