Oooh yeah good point. I didn’t make that connection

Huh? What context is this list set up in? I don’t really see how it relates to the medication issue.

…fuck.

That’s not what that page is saying. It’s terrifying enough that it’s a tie, there’s no need to make up fake polling information.

This article seems to imply they’ll withdraw charges for all parties, but the statement reads like they will only withdraw charges for the people confirmed dead…? Which is it

• yellow
• male
• round face, beard, brown hair, mid 20s (I think probably some internet-famous person whose name I don’t remember)
• small plastic ball filled with air
• a simple square table with a natural wood top and legs

That was my first thought. But then (before reading the questions) I also imagined other similar scenarios like with a soccer ball and my desk at work, lol.

My experience with this experiment was kind of like when they play memory flashbacks in movies, I could see the ball being pushed and falling, but with jump cuts and the timing was off. Detail-wise I’d say it was kinda like what you got from AI image generation when Dall-E first came out two-ish years ago.

I don’t think I have the most visual imagination out there but if aphantasia is one end of the scale I’m pretty far to the other side.

They’re not super common. I don’t see one every single time I go grocery shopping, though I would say typically there are maybe one or two recalls posted somewhere in the store at a time. Most I’ve seen at once is four, maybe a year or so ago, but they also keep the signs up for a few weeks so they didn’t happen all at once.

They do always have either a picture of the product or at least the name prominently placed, so you can glance at it to see whether it’s about something you might have bought.

In Germany, supermarkets typically post product recalls right on the doors or over the shelves of the section that has the affected products. I guess if you bought something you might be less likely to go down that aisle again next time and come across the sign, but (barring a big empty space at the entrance) I think that’s the most reasonable place for them to be

I bet this is going to be some sort of gotcha about how people didn’t feel the need to “deprogram an extremist liberal”, so obviously everyone is out to get the poor poor conservatives who just want to be vile in peace

I used to be principled like you, but this man has the potential to cause death and destruction on a scale so unfathomably larger than one person. Would I prefer he face justice? Absolutely. But at some point “not wishing death on someone” flies in the face of the greater good of humanity

Imagine you have to choose a health insurance company to be insured with like you choose a credit card (Visa, Mastercard, etc). Many doctors (shops) only accept certain insurance providers (cards) due to fees and other regulations.

The problem described in this article is when your insurance lists doctors that you can go to that will accept your insurance, but most of them have gone out of business or actually don’t accept your particular insurance anymore.

IntelliJ finds most uses in my experience unless you’re doing something weird with reflection or similar. And if it’s a public facing API only used by the library’s consumers…– it should be used in tests at the very least! Especially if it’s prone to regressions like the comment suggests

No usages

Actually, the GDPR applies to EU citizens no matter where they are so you shouldn’t have to make your request from the EU for them to have to believe it

You could have at least read the article before posting it. Nowhere does it say that, and the article goes into quite a bit of detail on how the bacteria travel. Or is that too much to ask?

Mmh, I see what you mean. Fair enough!

…what? How do you expect them to demonstrate their intelligence within the span of a single comment, without telling you? This “comeback” doesn’t work if their intelligence constitutes actually relevant context.

Okay, and they would argue that being progressive is never “right”. You refuse to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, which is that you are assuming a moral baseline that – while I’m sure is reasonable – simply not enough people share for it to be a given.

That is your standard, theirs is different. So how do you decide which is right?

There are unequivocable monsters in our society that should be exterminated

And who gets to decide who falls under that? If you ask former (and possibly future) president Trump, the left is “vermin” and immigrants “poison the blood”; his pick for VP is happy to sign off on progressives being called “unhuman”. Should these groups – in their view unequivocable monsters – be exterminated?