goatcode

>After that the drone will move up and down a few meters, before heading off at walking pace in the direction of the nearest representatives of Ukraine’s army, it says.

>The video also warns that the drone’s battery may run low, in which case it will head back to base and the soldiers should stay put and await a fresh one.

So follow it, unless it's heading to a base. Is it clear when its battery is low? Maybe it just goes faster.

I'm glad this knowledge and discussion is still alive and well. F them for this.

Relationships in time work transitively -- if each successive generation is worse, they're by definition worse than any have been before. See: Peter Gibbons and how his life is the worst its ever been, each new day.

After having spent far too long in an academic institution, whose administration was the most riddled with errors, incompetence, and bloat that I've ever encountered, this article makes me feel happy. It's not an easy problem, but at least someone notices.

Generation 0: each child kills 0 people on average.

Generation 1: each child kills 1 people on average. G0 comments that kids are killing more people these days.

Generation 2: each child kills 2 people on average. G1 comments that kids are killing more people these days.

Generation 3: each child kills 3 people on average. G2 comments that kids are killing more people these days.

Generation 3 points out that "lol people have been saying that forever. Nothing is happening. Our generation aren't that bad, because previous generations had the same narrative."

Please.

>This framework is designed to take into account a wide range of locations, individual conditions, and other data that can contribute to changing trends in sperm counts.

So, just count everyone and diminish the geographical factor in a problem. OK, let's ignore the problem until everyone is affected. Seems pretty un-legit.

It happens a lot in software, especially in the last half decade or so.

Suggest changing the title to "Only positive reinforcement [is permitted,] for researchers in some fields" for clarity.

If plenty of people are already doing it, why is the article titled with the question of whether we should start doing it?

It's because the article is talking about making it more of a primary source of nutrition. It isn't even the primary ingredient in sushi.

So, if the rich (and politicians) start eating it as a primary source of nutrition, then the commenter to whom you were replying might consider it similarly.

Fact Check: Not all free speech "absolutists" "excoriate" such things. Some of them have nearly always considered the context in which they're given to decide whether these kind of annotations indicate an actual fact-check, or, alternatively, a big flag that the post, podcast, or video might be something that contains genuinely interesting and informative content. Others enjoy seeing their oppressive opponents foisted upon their own petards, after the same tool did little to harm themselves to begin with, and then also seeing their opponents squeal in rage at how the turntables.

It looks to now have been removed. Update: it's back. You're a good man, Charlie Brown.

There are so few places anymore where you can't guess exactly what will be in the comments threads, and you go between feeling either frustrated or occasionally relieved to see someone who is open-minded. The few that popped up either seem to become echo chambers with their own biases, mysteriously disappear, or get flooded by organized campaigns to ruin the landscape.

That is what I myself ended up doing :)

In some areas, it would be necessary to somehow install trackers on your busses that you use. Depending on the jurisdiction, I've had to deal with busses either being possibly 10 minutes early, or missing their stop time by up to half an hour.

> youʻll end up with a council of third-rate minds and politically-motivated hacks, and the situation will be worse than how you started.

Wow, surprising honesty from someone affiliated with Reddit. I'm sad that I wasn't on the site during the time of the old guard.

It's like sitting in a mental ward and listening to two very potentially intelligent schizophrenics or dementia patients chat. Interesting at times and confusing most of the time.

"At this point any GOVERNMENT ACTOR, or private sector entity WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT..."

You missed that part. The Bill of Rights is (or at least was) a list of things the Government can't do.

Uri Bezmenov was telling the truth.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

>I bet he wasn’t feeling too great about that bit of litigation the deal closing helped him escape.

>Maybe one of the cronies who were cozying up to him

>freedom isn’t free.

There are a few nasties in the article. This nerd writer got so angry his writing even got pretty sloppy in his section (3).

Seething is in fashion!

> outputted

You're fired.

But seriously, this wasn't the kid's fault. There are a number of layers that should have prevented this, including NOT PUTTING PRODUCTION CREDENTIALS IN AN ONBOARDING DOCUMENT.

I'd be interested in how storage capacity has changed over the past 5 or so years. Has it been reduced for some reason?

>There is no such thing.

Effectively, that is true; and the closer you get to absolute objectivity, the scarier it becomes to the average person (which was the crux of my point, so I appreciate your pointing out what you did). Fitting that the dude would have mentioned psychopaths, in that light.

>Your “personal sovereignty” argument

What is this you're talking about? I talked about personal sovereignty OF IDENTITY. If you're going to strawman, at least strawman based on a correct reading of your target's point.

If you have a sensible set of statistics that you believe justify surrender of personal sovereignty of identity to this degree, I would invite you to ponder a set of statistics that you would think completely monstrous, but still arguable, toward such a surrender. There is someone out there who believes the opposite to you, and if you think the creation of a power that benefits your opinions should take place, know that it could be used by this hypothetical person to benefit his opinions.

If you're ok with all that, then you have a justifiable position. If not, then you do not.

Is it? Would you rather be dead or a zombie?

>docs.google.com

Not clicking that.

It's unfortunate that those who are against unions don't realize that they may, in some cases, be against the current state of a given union, and that they, if they belong to a given union, can change the state of it.

I was once in a union local of several thousand people that was directed by the fewer than 20 who showed up to the meetings. I pushed for a campaign of greater publication of upcoming meetings and in a few short months, the meetings filled a decent portion of a 500-person room. The changes that came about prove that the democracy under which many of these unions operate can lead to changes that cause them to better represent their collective body of workers.

You can change your union, if you want to, and that's a beautiful thing. Your union shouldn't have a predictable political slant (which is what a lot of anti-union normal people dislike). It should represent the collective views of its whole body -- which was the whole point of unions to begin with: to represent its whole body.

That's a pretty long rant to not have any mention of the reasons for which the removal was done, nor to have any mention of what was tried in attempt to find those reasons out.

Pretty much any assurance you have anywhere: the people doing the work. Theoretically, that is. I'd have to know the actual people before making a realistic determination as to whether they're not part of the same ilk as those whom they claim to oppose.

As we see in any of the social media platforms with things like selective enforcement of rules: people are policy.