CapacitorSet

It's worth noting that although at a first glance the face looks extremely realistic, there are some details that don't quite make sense and hint at a randomly-generated face.

This is what I got: https://i.imgur.com/iCfzjkZ.jpg

In no specific order:

- weird hair above the person's right eye, that doesn't match with the overall hairstyle (the patch of short hair) or realistic hair behaviour (straight bit of hair)

- what seems like beard on the chin, with unrealistic lighting

- hair turns into leaves at the bottom

- weird reflex in the left glass

- mismatching shapes for glasses (there's a small bump only on the right glass)

Pointing your MX records to Mailinator is a one-time small effort, then it's just a matter to sending mail to whatever@yourdomain.com.

Intelligence agents are by far some of the most infamous people.

This isn't any different from many download procedures. Consider that even a general-purpose package manager like Pacman uses HTTP, because there's little point in using transport-level security when the payload is cryptographically signed and there's a solid root of trust.

The only reasonable problem I see with this approach is that a MITM can make clients download an older version that is known to have critical bugs.

  void 0 !== b &&
      //node testability hack
      (b.tcg = c);

>I'll be blunt, I can't work out what this does, but I don't believe it's significant in the browser. If a node person wants to add input here, please do.

I don't know if OP is reading this thread, but this is a minified and then beautified version of `if (b !== undefined) b.tcg = c`.

You can achieve the same effect by reusing the profile, though I've heard it can be buggy due to forwards/backwards compatibility issues esp. in add-ons. It requires a bit of technical effort (launching firefox with the -P flag to open the profile manager, or editing profiles.ini directly), but if you're using several versions of Firefox chances are this is not a problem.

Did anyone else get the impression that this is a shallow post? I expected some detail about eg. the issues of transliteration, but instead it presented a couple of facts about idempotency in UX.

>Finally someone has the balls to call out what is a total & unequivocal anti-mankind force.

That would be nice, but it's not the case of China. As the article mentions, the crackdown merely affects independent churches.

It's mildly surprising to see countries of the "free world" ask Apple for user data much more often than some authoritarian governments or dictatorships - compare UK, US, AU, DE, FR, ES with HU, RU, CN, TR.

So, a fine-grained representative democracy.

We really do live in a dystopia.

You can use `ab`. I'll post an issue about that.

Unsurprisingly, an inverse-square mechanism can't replace a linear one over a wide working range.

I feel like "gatekeeping" is a more appropriate term, but yeah.

The matter is that he is specifically denouncing Jews in their link with the USSR, that's what makes him worthy of being called antisemite. It's not merely a coincidence (i.e. he denounces a specific social group which happens to contain many Jews), he singled them out in the context of denouncing the Soviet Union.

It's an old trick of antisemites. If you lurk antisemite pages or speak with antisemites, you'll find that a common talking point is the importance of Jews in the birth of communism (and the supposed link between Jews and communism in general), and likewise the importance of Jews in contemporary finance and politics. If you were to listen to such talking points, you'd argue that they were not actual anti-semites, but merely anti-finance-semites, anti-globalization-semites, anti-Soros-semites and the like.

Being the author of important pieces of literature unfortunately does not prevent one from holding wrong positions - a similar, well-known case is James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA, Nobel Prize in Medicine, and yet holding eugenetic views.

Solzhenitsyn is an anti-semite, and blames atheism for the existence of the Soviet Union and the problems in the modern world in general.

It is a great thing that he isn't being listened to - and yet, he is receiving more attention than he's worth.

That's curious. The article made me think of an anecdote recounted to me about four 20-something boys figuring out they identified as girls in rather short succession, where the witness also hypothesized there was a social effect.

She just needed bananas¹.

¹ A blood panel and potassium supplements

>Why do we keep selling weapons to such a repressive regime?

To a government, £1 billion and the approval of the arms industry are worth much more than a mild disapproval by the public opinion.

We can't know for sure whether they are counter-productive - would there be more islamists without the Chinese policy of repression? Would there be more attacks? We can only conjecture.

>low employment [is] not relevant when you bring talents

While I agree with the rest, I wouldn't be too sure about this. I suppose a tech talent doesn't plan on working at the same place their whole lives, so they would take into consideration the availability of tech jobs in the area.

That's a very unprofessional readme.

"The microscopic parameter changes [are] inherent in every print" seems like a weak argument for claiming that the article is garbage science. No two fingerprints are pixel-perfect, and DNA samples can get damaged, but this doesn't mean that such methods are invalid - in fact, they can be valid even in forensic contexts.

>It's similar to a farmer selling his ware in a marketplace, which he must pay rent for. Would you say that because he doesn't own the marketplace (or store) he doesn't own his means of production?

This analogy doesn't hold in the Marxian framework. Gig companies adopt the "D-M-D" scheme, where they hire a worker to produce a service which the company will sell, earning part of the profits; the marketplace owner does not enter such a scheme, and its relationship with the farmer is not considered to extract surplus value.

>But even if you do think so, they are still much better off, Marxist-wise, from virtually every service worker, who own no means of production.

Indeed, people like the farmer - owning the means of production, and self-employed or with few employees - are a distinct class in the Marxian framework, namely the petite bourgeoisie.

Crucially, gig workers do not own an important part of their means of production: the platform that processes rides/rentals/etc, payments and users, which allows the traditional bourgeois to extract surplus value (Mehrwert) in the usual way, and the workers fit the definition of proletarians.

The author uses a silly definition of rebel, which nobody realistically uses (precisely because there are no thus-defined "rebels"). As a result, the article is rather inconsequential.

It's hard to tell, to be fair. We don't know whether a React version of Gmail (equally maintained etc.) would use more or less RAM.

How is the fault for low wages on the worker, and not the employer? Why is the employer granted the freedom to push unlivable wages, rather than the worker being granted the right to be paid livable wages?

How is the problem that workers accept lower wages, rather than employers proposing them?