What would the executives have said if the deployment team had said to them "The product can stay online, but these are the risks of doing so while we work on them."?
I guess you’ve fallen foul of the rules to protect against trademark “squatting”. They surely weren’t designed with (non-commercial) OSS projects in mind.
Could the friends access the server through the VPN?
> It's secured behind our own VPN.
> So, how do I create a shared photo album with my friends where we can all upload pictures from our latest trip? Well...since our friends can't access our server
How does getting rid of the death penalty address the parent’s concern about false imprisonment? I understand the philosophical and practical arguments against the death penalty, but getting rid of it won’t forestall zealous prosecutors.
well it will help to forestall the person being dead if exonerating evidence comes along, although anticipating the next question - yes, they can of course die for other reasons in prison, but not having any stats to back it up I will just state my very strong suspicion that most people on death row who die in prison do so because the death penalty was applied.
Even a 20x multiple of such a number is still a relatively tiny number.
You can consider this the cost of the Second Amendment today. The difference is that when new technology comes along that will let you incapacitate someone without killing them, we will always already have the Second Amendment in place, and Germany will not suddenly give this weapon-right back to the people just because technology has progressed to the point that it is safer. A right that is given away to the state is 10 times harder to reclaim (and usually costs bloodshed).
So, be smug for now about the temporary illusion of safety you have created. Enjoy the fact that your “Bulle” are mostly unarmed. I’m sure the terrorists you’re letting into your country every day who will happily use knives and bombs (and, ahem, runaway vehicles) instead of guns will “pay off” one day, because all of those people can at least hypothetically be stopped by a single armed citizen. (And this does happen, by the way.)
The Scotsman fallacy is when you claim that no member of a group meets a certain criteria that is not a defining criteria for that group. "No true Scotsman wears green shoes" is a fallacy. "No true Scotsman is born and spends their entire life in Singapore" is not a fallacy, because someone born in and spending their entire life in Singapore would not meet the defining criteria of being a Scotsman in the first place.
"No one sane believes that" implies that the belief that cops should be able to execute people on the spot is incompatible with the definition of sanity. Given that sanity is ill-defined, it's a reasonable (if slightly hyperbolic) statement.
"What the news is force feeding you" — I have to admit my feeling purely based on your phrasings is that you are the one who probably lives on a diet of social media "news", but that is besides the point.
I am not German, I took German police killing statistics because Germany is the biggest EU nation with the most migration, to make it a fair comparison. The statistics for both US/Germany are from wikipedia and I averaged the numbers for the past decade to avoid the noise a little. If you can't handle these facts I am deeply sorry, but maybe you should reflect on how you rejecting reality might in fact make the problem worse for your country.
> No one sane believes that
I didn't claim they are sane. You have a major TV "news" station whose now disgraced former host used the defence of "no reasonable person would take this serious" in a court of law. And this is the most widely watched news station in the US. Just saying.
You can release someone from prison, but it generally does not happen. And legal system does NOT care about your guilt or innocence after you have been sentenced.
Even if there is clear and unambiguous proof that you was factually innocent, legal system is setup to ignore it. There is no innocence pathway out of prison once you was sentenced.
That's the state of the system right now, but it doesn't have to stay this way. It doesn't look like there's much hope for it given the current political direction, but it's possible that the system will improve over the coming decades. An innocent person sentenced to prison today can still be released at that point, but an innocent person murdered by the state can't be unmurdered.
And while I can't imagine what it would be like to be locked up for such a long time while innocent, I doubt every such innocent prisoner would prefer being dead.
Playing Devil’s advocate… Socialisation is what’s driving technology use. It’s just happening on the phones, not irl. Just like with alcohol, anyone not participating will be left out. If everyone’s on their phones all the time, IRL socialisation won’t matter compared to socialisation via phones.
I think this was true a decade ago, where people used social media to talk to each other and actively kept chats with friends, etc.
What I’m seeing now is social media got so hyper optimized for engagement that it became a passive consumption mechanism, and the only “socialization” left is sharing memes. It’s a widespread digital heroin epidemic
Disagree. Nothing can replace face to face socialization. We're not even close. Our minds are just adapting, but to a new local maximum that is far away from the global maximum of ideal.
Socialization online exists, but I'm not sure that it's the main activity on phones.
When you look at https://explodingtopics.com/blog/screen-time-for-teens it does not look promising.
Video is leading, then Gaming which can include socialization then third come Social media but with Tik Tok leading which I would not categorize as socialization.
Rather: avoidance of socialization is what's driving it. It's the easy way out of meeting people while still getting compliments and such and pretending "everything is fine". In that sense, it indeed has a lot in common with alcohol.
