valaramech

I generally agree with the stance that undercover cops should be allowed to lie, since failing to do so would defeat the purpose of being undercover. However, an officer actively arresting someone using their authority as a police officer should be required to be as truthful as possible with the person detained.

I’ll stop saying “defund the police” when “protect and serve” is actually what they do.

I’ve seen this claim made multiple times but the articles in question make no mention of it - including this one, unless I’m blind. Do you have a source for this claim?

Considering both include convulsions and cardiac arrest can be accompanied by agonal breathing, I don’t think you can definitively state this.

Smith also resisted breathing for as long as he could at the beginning of the procedure and I think that needs to be taken into account. I won’t say they absolutely didn’t botch his execution, but I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence to that effect.

A pure nitrogen environment does not prevent the exhalation of carbon dioxide (source).

From the Wikipedia article on Inert Gas Asphyxiation:

When humans breathe in an asphyxiant gas, such as pure nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, methane, or any other physiologically inert gas, they exhale carbon dioxide without re-supplying oxygen.

This leads to asphyxiation (death from lack of oxygen) without the painful and traumatic feeling of suffocation (the hypercapnic alarm response, which in humans arises mostly from carbon dioxide levels rising)

Unconsciousness in cases of accidental asphyxia can occur within one minute.

Loss of consciousness may be accompanied by convulsions[9] and is followed by cyanosis and cardiac arrest.

tl;dr - literally everything that happened in the execution was precisely as expected. Smith did not suffer and was not conscious after the first few minutes of the procedure.

There’s nothing wrong with OCI Images. If you’re concerned about the security of Docker (which, imo, you should be) there are other container runtimes that don’t have its security tradeoffs (e.g. podman).

Getting repeatedly beaten in competitive multiplayer games is just kinda par for the course if you haven’t learned the meta, strategies, etc. If you lack game knowledge and your opponents have that game knowledge, you will mostly lose.

If winning in the game is the only way you find enjoyment in them, then those kinds of games require significant investments of time and energy to “git good”.

I say this as someone who is repeatedly shit on in every game of CoD I’ve ever played and will play in the future. That said, I don’t gain particular enjoyment from winning alone - not that it isn’t fun to win, just that I get just as much enjoyment from other aspects of the game.

It sounds to me, mostly, that these games just don’t really appeal to your idea of what’s fun.

Israeli settlers have, for years now, been slowly encroaching into territory officially recognized as Palestinian lands. These people absolutely have the choice to move back out of those areas and into lands officially recognized as belonging to Israelis. On the other hand, very few people can “just move, lol” and I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel specifically chose settlers that would be burdened economically if they attempted to leave.

To be clear, Israel has continuously acted in bad faith against Palestinians and, along with its allies, destroyed the peaceful (or, at least, less militant) groups that sought to unite the Palestinians. This is absolutely a problem of their own making and I would be surprised if there was a peaceful path forward with the current political climate in the region.

I’m not sure where that part of the post comes from. The source says “The judge said he will apppoint(sic) an independent receiver to manage the dissolution of the corporations whose business certificates he canceled.” Which I can only take to mean that the judge is doing the appointing, not Trump.

Put simply, yes. Without explicit help to those that have less now, future generations simply lack the means to access those opportunities.

Take, for example, the situation ultimately presented in the article: if the person/people that are doling out the money have even a small amount of bias against a class of people, the result is that - outside of forcing investors to make what they see as bad investments - they will categorically invest less in that class of people. It doesn’t actually matter what class it is.

These laws might prevent us from codifying our biases into contract or other law, but they do absolutely nothing to solve the problem the bias itself causes.