commandar

Sustainability is a large part of Framework’s mission as well. The CEO has explicitly said that one of their goals is that none of their laptops should end up in a landfill.

The transmission in those things is an amazing level of suck, too. It’s this bizarre automatic manual thing that’s just awful to drive.

Stakeholders are people with any kind of interest in the company doing well

Corporate social responsibility as a concept is even broader than that – it’s not just anyone who has interest in the company doing well, but broad consideration of anyone impacted by the decisions of the company.

A company might be able to save operational costs by dumping toxic sludge in a river, but within a CSR framework, people living downstream would be considered stakeholders and the potential negative impact of the decision on those people is supposed to be taken into account when decisions are made. The corporation is supposed to have a responsibility to do right by anyone impacted by their actions wherever possible.

At least that’s the theory. It shouldn’t be surprising that the language of CSR gets pretty commonly coopted by companies looking to whitewash what they’re actually doing.

The US has 11 out of 22.

This is only a partial picture.

The US has 11 supercarrier groups that individually rival the power of most nation’s entire airforces. These are unrivaled by anything else in the world.

The US additionally has 9 America and Wasp class amphibious assault ships that have an airwing capability that rivals most other nations’ carrier groups. The Navy plans for this force to eventually be made up of 11 America class ships.

So the reality is that the US’ secondary aircraft carrier capability rivals that of the rest of the world combined. The total power disparity of the combined supercarrier and amphibious assault fleet is mind boggling.

it took me way too long to realize that i can tell my boss to eat shit.

I think the difference in upbringing you’re describing is a huge part of it.

Millennials went through spending our entire early adult lives being gaslit about how all the ways we were being abused were ultimately somehow our fault because our parents refused to recognize the systemic issues we were facing.

We may have come to the realization late, but we can certainly make sure younger generations know that they can and should call bullshit when they see it.

Most security systems these days are just whitelabeled zwave etc sensors with a proprietary hub and a monthly charge.

The nice thing about HA is that you can pull almost everything into it and then add whatever automations you want. Recent example was my SO complaining about how dark it was going to the car when they leave in the morning. Super easy to set up an automation that turns on the floodlight switches when the front door opens between dusk and dawn. All kinds of stuff like that that’s really useful.

“Canceled” is a term assholes came up with to rebrand “consequences” to make it seem like something that isn’t their own fault.

Not sure I agree with this particular take. My recollection is that this usage of cancelled started in progressive internet spaces and was absolutely used to describe consequences for being an asshole.

It’s the exact same trajectory woke took – it was language used by left-leaning people that got co-opted and intentionally diluted by conservatives.

The reality is that they already have all the excuse they need.

Personally, I’m not a fan of the side that’s perfectly happy with pursuing genocide having the perception that they have a monopoly of violence.

Easiest way to kickstart it is arming at-risk minorities.

California’s strict gun laws have their roots in white conservatives’ reaction to the Black Panthers marching with rifles while St. Reagan was governor of the state.

The upside of this strategy is that if the gun laws don’t change, then at least those minorities will have some means of protecting themselves.

Refusing to cooperate with Democrats is what sank him.

He needed support from Democrats to keep the Speakership. He’s spent the entire year giving them no reason to trust him – including going on the Sunday shows this week knowing this vote was coming and trying to blame Democrats for the near shutdown.

This AI ruling is also actually completely in-line with existing precedent from the photography world.

The US Copyright Office has previously ruled that a photograph taken by a non-human (in this case, a monkey) is not copyrightable:

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

That’s a really great point and another reason I’ve really enjoyed the Garmin experience – Garmin doesn’t try to sell your own data back to you.

Getting anything more than the absolute most basic of real time data out of a Fitbit requires an annual subscription. With Garmin, it’s just there.

Fitbit is owned by Google and has the same policy of not repairing cracked screens.

I owned a Sense 2 and was in a bicycle crash. Screen hit the pavement and shattered. Absolutely no options from Fitibit/Google to get it repaired.

I switched to Garmin and couldn’t be happier.

The NRA is pretty low on the list of organizations that would have tried to push the issue if this involved someone not named Hunter Biden. They’re very much a culture war outlet that won’t go to bat for anyone they consider an undesirable.

There are other advocacy groups that have been talking about this issue for a number of years, though. And there have been lower court rulings this year that make whether that provision of Form 4473 is going to be able to withstand scrutiny questionable.

Like I said, where these gun rights groups land on this case is going to be pretty telling about where they stand generally. The culture warriors will come up with excuses. It should be an interesting barometer for whether these groups actually believe in universal application of what they consider rights.

A lot of gun rights groups have been champing at the bit for a good chance to challenge that section of Form 4473 for a while now. A common point of contention is that e.g., holding a medical marijuana card would be a disqualifier if truthfully filling out a 4473. It’s so rarely actually prosecuted that finding a test case isn’t particularly easy, though.

It will be interesting – and telling – to see how they react to this case.

The CEO of Unity used to the the CEO of EA.

It explains a lot.

Something like a body panel is going to expand/contract a couple of orders of magnitude more than 10 microns just from the weather changing day-to-day.

If the law says you can’t kill people by driving into them, and then someone slides into them (intentionally), is that illegal?

It depends on how it’s defined in the law. States generally don’t write laws that define vehicular homicide solely as striking a person specifically with the front of a passenger car for exactly this reason. Further, the need for precision in law is why intentional acts and negligent acts are generally defined separately e.g., murder vs manslaughter.

Beyond that, judges exist and are given sentencing discretion (or at least should be) because there are mitigating circumstances… in other words shit happens.

Discretion in enforcement/prosecution is not the same thing as enforcing something that isn’t defined in law. One is arguably a necessary component of real justice, the other is how authoritarianism functions.

The National Firearms Act has very specific language defining what constitutes a machine gun. It does not include language giving the executive branch power to expand that definition. Either something meets that legal definition and is legally a machine gun or it isn’t.

I’m not even saying that it’s impossible for an enforcing agency to be given those powers – the FDA, for example, has been given pretty sweeping authority to classify drugs. In fact, they have the explicit authority to classify analogs of illegal drugs as illegal. That’s basically the parallel to what’s being discussed here with the NFA and the ATF.

The difference is that Congress hasn’t given the ATF the authority to do so. If you want the law to grant the ability to enforce a less specific definition than what exists in the current law then you need to either change the law to carry a more expansive definition and/or give the enforcing agency the power to make that definition outright. Either of those things would allow the sort of enforcement the other commenter was calling for, but it would be within the letter of the law.

The point wasnt that you can’t enact a particular law or even that you can’t allow for enforcement to be adaptive – it was that rule of law requires that adaptiveness to be defined within the law itself. It’s totally okay if the law says “it depends and here’s who decides.” It’s not okay to decide to enforce the law on the basis of “this is what I feel like the law should do” even if the actual language of the law doesn’t support it.

There’s the letter of the law and then there’s the spirit of the law.

Only the former should be legally enforceable. If you start enforcing the latter regardless of the former, the legal system stops being about rule of law and more about the subjective whims of those enforcing it.

If the letter of the law doesn’t capture the intent, then the law needs to change, but laws shouldn’t be subjectively enforced on the basis of what someone feels like they should mean rather than what they actually say.

It’s SEO-optimization nonsense.