sphericth0r

Or reading comprehension, who knows, we’ll never understand

Why indeed

Why do people slamming their head into a wall deserve a headache?

I think that your message is pretty clear if they’re not somebody trolling on the internet asking everybody to reason things out for them. It must be so withering for them to wander through life hearing things and not being able to reason any of it out. I agree with your unpopular but factual opinion, based on our voting and actions as a herd we likely do deserve another great depression whether we think it’s good or bad. A reversion to the mean is not “edgelord bullshit”, simply a basic understanding of fucking economics. It may be an unpopular opinion, but there are plenty of people who do have some knowledge and experience in the world who are equally concerned that we don’t change our policies, because that would be the only thing that stops us from actually getting a reversion to the mean and a depression cycle

Google be in trouble then

I the FDA can’t even keep up with trying to approve legitimate pharmaceutical drugs, let’s not task them with looking at random s*** too.

That’s just a blatant lie, a 30 second search on the internet returned plenty of information about this substance… If you can’t establish enough confidence that some random drug that you buy at a gas station isn’t the really legit, don’t buy it? Ugh, we are doomed at this rate

Enjoying the view from under the boot eh?

As long as people become trapped in the choice between which one is worse they will be trapped by the false dichotomy. Neither is good, let’s seek better alternatives.

Or the agenda of individuals sick of the false dichotomy who want neither asshat

I know, Congress should be ashamed of themselves. We would be hard pressed to find a group that had a worse understanding of technology

I believe libel laws already exist, but when you’re in Congress you must make laws in a reactionary way otherwise considered thought and reason might begin to permeate the law. We wouldn’t want that.

I’m not sure why you take issue with the facts that the word aggravated in this context means that the people are implied, or that adding words is not easier to read. It’s okay that you didn’t know what aggravated means, but it still doesn’t change the fact that this is redundant information. Redundant information is harder to read, and the specific gender of the victim does not add anything to the context for the headline, a de facto harder to read title. It’s possible that this was done on purpose, or that the author was also unaware that aggravated means people are involved and felt they needed to add words.

You’re right about the backyard but that would involve a person or people. If the discharge is aggravated, by definition it implies that people are involved. Adding the gender of the person that is implied is done for an emotional response from certain groups by not providing context that is useful. We fill in the blank with our biases.

I think that they’re saying that the person is implied, aggravated discharge of a weapon with no person involved is just target practice.

It’s probably best to look at what the devops industry is embracing, environment variables are as secure as any of the alternatives but poor implementations will always introduce attack vectors. Secret management stores require you to authenticate, which requires you to store the credential for it somewhere - no matter what there’s no way to secure an insecure implementation of secrets access

That’s just as insecure lol, env vars are far better

I don’t see any evidence to support the assertion that government is more efficient, but I may have missed it in the article. Could you cite your sources please?

I’m not sure why we wanted Google building housing anyway, seems like a perfect opportunity for them to blend their real estate and advertising holdings in a perverse way. This seems like the best possible outcome…

I guess, according to this article, car insurance companies are encouraging people to drive recklessly and kill others in their vehicles, simply by providing them with insurance against the bodily injury of others. I’m not sure how the author doesn’t see the parallels between any insurance that guards against reckless behavior and the NRA’s insurance. To be clear I’m not a user of their insurance or a member of their organization, just finding the lack of introspection in the argument used in the article appalling.

Even worse, they’ll claim it was a bug