RobertMiller

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:

The "Five Eyes" anglosphere establishment uses Australia as a testbed for authoritarian measures that may later be implemented in the others.

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.

Serbs are still mad NATO interrupted their genocide?

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.

You can execute zsh scripts from a fish command line, or any other. Where is the problem?

There are several feature comparison tables for numerous shells here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_command_shells

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?

If a game isn't relevant enough to port to new hardware, is it really relevant enough to benchmark with?

Agreed, it's very unbecoming.

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.

freedns.afraid.org is another popular one.

For the few years in college I was living off campus, I never paid for internet at all. Cracking WEP was that easy.

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.

apropos : Of an appropriate or pertinent nature.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apropos

Imagine trying to sell this premise to somebody 50 years ago.

It's a toaster, just like the one you already have on your counter, except it won't work unless you give the manufacturer a copy of your rolodex.

People then would laugh in your face, but today most people don't even seem to blink. The absurd has been normalized.

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.

It's worse than this. While money does not flow from Mozilla Foundation to Mozilla Corporation, the opposite is not true. A lot of the money that Mozilla Corporation manages to make is not spent on Firefox development, but is instead paid to Mozilla Foundation, ostensibly to license the Mozilla brand. The Foundation is actively holding Firefox back with this organizational scheme.

For 2019, the Mozilla Foundation received $15,858,258 per a trademark license agreement with Mozilla Corporation, allowing us to reinvest earnings from our products into advocacy and grant making that grow the internet health movement.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2019/

That's not how things work, at all. Ballistic missile defense is meant to reduce the number of nuclear warheads that make it through, not eliminate the threat entirely. Extant ballistic missile defense doesn't even come close to eliminating the threat, and that's without considering Status-6.

Consider, for instance, that there is no way in hell you could touch North Dakota with Status-6. If Russia wanted to attack missile silos in North Dakota, they would need to use their own ballistic missiles for it. Ballistic missile defense reduces the chance that they could succeed in any sort of decapitating preemptive strike. That it can't also stop a nuclear-powered torpedo is irrelevant; that's simply not what it's meant for. Other threats are/will be countered by other systems.

Might want to take "OODA Loop" out of the title since the article has nothing to do with OODA Loops, which in this context apparently is just the name of the website (rather than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop)

It's not redrawing/resizing with a GUI that's the matter, it's the whole of it. TUIs are easy to create without much investment in learning a whole GUI system.

But then creating TUIs now require as much complexity as creating single window GUIs (requiring handling events outside the program)

No way dude. All you need to do is catch SIGWINCH and then ioctl/TIOCGWINSZ to get the new size. Back when I was into roguelike development, responding to the terminal resizing took scarcely more than a half dozen lines of C. I wish I knew of a GUI system this simple.

yt-dlp supports this sort of thing too..

Multi-threaded fragment downloads: Download multiple fragments of m3u8/mpd videos in parallel. Use --concurrent-fragments (-N) option to set the number of threads used

Not all sites are willing to max out your pipe with a single connection. Making multiple connections to those sites often gets around that.

Extant American ballistic missile defenses don't seem sufficient to repel a committed ICBM/SLBM attack from Russia, or even China. THAAD and Patriot can only protect a relatively small area around each installation, not even remotely enough to protect the whole country in a war like that. GMD can intercept ballistic missiles mid course and has substantial range, but no more than a few dozen interceptors total for the entire country. Aegis is formidable and numerous, but the SM-3 interceptors used by those ships have substantially less range compared to GMD interceptors, and only some of the missiles carried by Aegis ships will be those SM-3s.

If we're not dead already, how bad could they be?

wasn't there one of those DARPA contests to see if a guy in the garage could produce a cruise missile? IIRC it got quite scary and was cancelled or something.

This sounds similar to the Nth Country Experiment, conducted by the US in the 1960s. The idea was to see if three freshly minted physics PhDs could design a working nuclear weapon using only publicly available information. In less than 3 years, the three succeeded in creating a credible design for an implosion-style bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment

They haven't used them because they are -- for all intents and purposes -- useless.

To your point, some numbers from wikipedia:

The LD50 of sarin is 39 micrograms per kilogram, so 0.0039 grams to kill a 100kg man half the time in theory.

Now consider the worst of the gas attacks in Syria was in Ghouta. Fatality estimates vary considerably, but the highest estimate claims 1729 fatalities. The attack is claimed to have been performed using at least 8 rockets, likely more, each with at least 50 liters of liquid sarin. That's a lower bound of 400 liters of liquid sarin, for an upper bound of 1729 kills. Liquid sarin's density is roughly the same as water, so that works out to more than 230 grams of sarin per person killed. And if you use the lower fatality estimates or the higher rocket count estimates, the numbers are even worse.

Conclusion? The delivery/dispersion of poison gas is incredibly inefficient. In practice you need tens of thousand times more nerve gas than the LD50 figures would have you naively believe.