The text you quoted does not seem to convey any displeasure at the law. Think what you like.
> This added step is informed by
Why so passive? Why not "required by"?
> We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Why not omit this apologia?
Also, that statement about the DMCA is on every single search page with DMCA omissions. Do you think Google is going to cite the ID law by name on every page requiring it? I guess we'll find out, but I'm not holding my breath for this.
They aren't required to disclose any DMCA removals, but choose to anyway, citing the law by name. Pointing out that a law is requiring them to do something is the least anybody can do if they object to that law's requirements. The omission of such a statement is sufficient evidence to conclude they are willing collaborators. A tech corporation like Google does not deserve the benefit of the doubt anyway.
If they want us to believe they're displeased at this requirement, why don't they say so? Google has certainly complained and protested about other laws before.
> In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 15 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:
A simple "the law requires us to" somewhere in that quote would have gone a long way to convey displeasure at their arm being twisted. But nothing in that quote suggests any arm twisting, and why should google of all corporations be given the benefit of the doubt? They look like eager and willing collaborators.
If I've learned anything from countless gun control debates online, it's that laughing at your opposition for misusing technical terminology is the best way to win a debate.
No of course not, animals are soulless automatons without any relatable emotion or reason that humans could ever perceive let alone understand. Anybody who thinks otherwise is just deluded by anthropomorphization and overzealous pattern matching.
An angry dog? No such thing, anger is a human emotion. A happy dog? Again, no such thing. A sad dog? Never existed, sadness is uniquely human.
I think POSIX compliance of interactive shells is completely irrelevant. POSIX shells are relevant when you're writing scripts that will be distributed, but there's no reason that needs to be done with the same shell you use interactively. I use fish presently and zsh before that for nearly 15 years, but my shell scripts have always started with #!/bin/sh
It's not like fish installs to /bin/sh, nor are /bin/sh scripts executed using fish just because your interactive shell is fish. I guess these are the two misconceptions the common worries are based on?
I wonder if somewhere out there on the web there's an architect forum where architects are whining about wheelchair ramps like the webdevs in these discussions always seem to.
I used to have a hard time remembering apropos because I assumed 'apropos' was some sort of unixy mincing of another word or abbreviation or something, and I couldn't figure out what it meant. You know, like 'mkdir' means "MaKe DIRectory"
But it turns out apropos is just a regular word. Once I learned this, I haven't had any more trouble with it.
> It can't be turned on remotely unless I press a button on the oven itself, and even then it'll only allow it once.
That it's possible at all suggests that the oven is only one bad firmware update away from turning itself on when you don't intend it.
Conceivably such a limitation could be built into the hardware; e.g. with a button that works like a circuit breaker. Set to break after the oven starts once and requiring the user to manually reset it. But the odds of it actually being implemented in this way, rather than pure software, is virtually nil.
Which kind? 'Hypersonic' is a speed regime, not a technology in itself.
Hypersonic cruise missiles are not in the purview of ballistic missile defense, unless they have a ballistic stage, in which case they might be. Hypersonic boost-glide vehicles, having a ballistic boost-stage, are countered by some forms of ballistic missile defense, but not all.
Ballistic missile defense is a defense against ballistic missiles. Not torpedoes, cruise missiles, artillery shells, nukes smuggled in shipping containers, frogmen going up a river with a SDV, or anything else. Pretty much just ballistic missiles, or at least weapons with a ballistic boost stage.
> This added step is informed by
Why so passive? Why not "required by"?
> We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Why not omit this apologia?
Also, that statement about the DMCA is on every single search page with DMCA omissions. Do you think Google is going to cite the ID law by name on every page requiring it? I guess we'll find out, but I'm not holding my breath for this.