Reading the article it wasn't clear to me why exactly they couldn't sell elsewhere cheaper. That seems to be an important detail. Is there some fine print stating if you're 'caught' selling cheaper elsewhere you lose the buy button? This wasn't clear to me from the article.
Not to detract from your sarcasm but the conservation of energy only holds true in flat spacetime. So I guess you don't 'believe' in curved spacetime? That makes you a flat spacetimer I guess...
Docker takes advantage of various linux sandboxing features. On a linux bare metal host it's just a combination of namespaces and resource constraints (cgroups) whereas on other platforms it will have to be the above within a bonafide VM running a linux kernel. The general rule is that linux maintains backward compatability even in ABI so as long as the host kernel is the same or newer than the image requirements it should just work. Things wont work for example if your image requires iouring (a brand new syscall interface) but your host OS is running 4.x (doesn't map iouring syscalls to anything).
I had never heard this before. Do you have a source? It seems to me the more informed in virology people are the more they seem to think the 'leak' is the most likely scenario.
Abraham buys land in Genesis: "For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as property for a burying place." Gen 23:9. Private property contract law is nothing new. My thought is how many of these landlords will end up turning to more nefarious means to make ends meet? It seems when the legal system fails people inevitably turn to vigilantism.
I have to say, hermeneutics is something our western culture has become catastrophically bad at. When the failure of postmodernism became apparent (truths unfortunately must be shared to take any corporate action in society), we seem to have reverted directly back into a Nietzschian nihilism, every group only exists as a means to power. This has begun to erode traditional modernist western ideals which the postmodernists seemed to allow: offensive speech isn't necessarily wrong, interpretation and truth are two sides to the same coin, etc.
1. These companies have every right to legally censor those they disagree with.
2. By exercising that right they put themselves at risk of being regulated more stringently (as utilities for example) when they demonstrate inelasticity in consumer choice.
3. I'd rather them not be treated as utilities because that hampers competition and thus impedes efficiency.
4. Your statement above is a farcical caricature of conservative ideology. Every product/service deserves a debate on what regulation is appropriate but as a society regulation only exists because bad actors necessitated its creation. No one wants car seats for their 8 year olds - we'd much rather be trusted to do the right thing.
I'm not the OP but I know several voters who seem to match the OP's sentiment:
1. Abortion is simply the legally sanctioned killing of helpless human beings. I know _many_ single issue voters who begrudgingly voted for trump because of this.
2. Climate change denialism is pretty much anti common sense. Anyone who completely ignores the issue stinks of corruption.
The existence of God does not preclude the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Even the Bible itself references intelligent non-human beings in Genesis. Read the Space Trilogy by CS Lewis.
Not sure why this is being downvoted. I think your logic is sound. Typically vaccinations don't work this way though. AFAIK contagion is proportional to viral load which is inversely proportional to immune response (via some complex function over time from initial infection).
Unfortunately the biggest questions surrounding public policy inevitably fall into realms science can't answer for us.
How far do we go to resuscitate these victims of tragedy? How far do we go as a society to punish wrongdoing? When does institutionalization become dehumanizing? For that matter - what is a disorder versus simply a difference in human beings?
As a doctor, this author should know these are questions her field cannot answer and this overt humanism is just so arrogant.
I think the frustrating thing about this article is that every single observation has obvious exceptions. The thesis "mammals are unique" could just as easily be antithesized by the chosen evidence.
This taxonomical difficulty has always fascinated me. I give biologists the benefit of the doubt that they have solid evidence for their categorization but in the back of my mind I've always been curious about this. Why would these unique features exist in other lineages? Perhaps the space of diversity in behaviors is smallish to the point that random overlap occurs? Maybe it's purely definitional and the actual behaviors are distinct between say mammals and birds?
Or maybe my problem is that I failed my 7th grade taxonomy exam catastrophically and have never quite gotten over that :)
My parents were manipulated into having prenatal disability tests because of my mom's low amniotic fluid during my sister's pregnancy. Tests came back positive and the doctors recommended abortion. My parents were horrified, being pro-life. They endured a traumatic next few months and a premature delivery. That was 1989. My sister was fine but it left my parents with enduring resentment of doctors to this day.
My abortion "policy" has been that it should be illegal to knowingly put an unborn fetus in jeopardy (unless the mother's life is at risk of course) as soon as the pregnancy is known beyond reasonable doubt. I can't imagine any other policy that doesn't dance with eugenics.
I think that the government's prerogative should be facilitating adoption for the baby and mitigating the "unavoidable" inequity to the mother biology has put upon her.
I understand many disagree with the above, I only ask that you keep an open mind as I also try to do about one of the trickiest moral quandaries in the present age.
I will make a shameless plug for marriage. While it is obviously not foolproof, and can go bad just as swiftly as no marriage at all, it is still a good signal of commitment in a partner. If your partner desires to be married (not just to please you I might add) then at least at face value he desires commitment. It isn't just an idle ceremony but a contract and vows with family and friends witnessing ideally to hold you to account.