gusgus01

It comes down to the individual agreements that those private-contract cameras have with Flock, which unfortunately means it might be a case by case basis to understand if any one has conditions that allow sharing with law enforcement. IT was recently discovered that local police departments that had Flock contracts that limited the police department's access did not restrict general access, so Flock could still use it how they wanted and let federal agencies (ICE) use it: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachus...

I mean it depends on what we are talking about. The case you mention was about the right to peacefully assemble, and that the swastika does not count as "fighting words" and thus not grounds to say the assembly isn't allowed. In the case of Europe, they don't have the same constitution as the USA so I'm not sure how to compare that, and if those extremists are merely being silenced over swastikas or calls for the deaths of people since you didn't specify.

Plus the comparison to Europe and that specific case is especially untenable because if the specific case in Europe was in Germany, then they have a special relationship with the swastika.

They have a history of removing videos that describe things they don't like under the guise of "harm", eg Linus Tech Tips video on De-Googling your life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdZ7xmytiQ

Oh I'm clear about the demographic you are trying to discuss, my point was I'm not sure this all stemmed from a discussion about that specific demographic. It started at "people in US", then went to "most", then by the time you got involved in the thread you were defending a statement about people with private health insurance.

I could have made this comment at the level where it went off the rails, but I thought making it at the leaf level would help everyone involved see the deviation between what was said and what was being argued.

I would say if you ignore the poorest 40% of the population, you've got quite the slim margin to go before you are no longer talking about "Most" Americans, which the OP was pretty explicitly talking about.

He was saying "Most people in the US" don't make 100-200k more, and that they probably don't even make 100k. This was in response to the generalization that "people from other countries ... underestimate how well paid people in the US often are".

Now there was talk of getting the political motivation to change things, so I guess everyone is assuming Medicaid/Medicare/VA recipients don't want to change the system, but that wasn't really established, nor was that really being refuted.

Funny enough, in another top level thread, there's a chain of people claiming it's Uber Eats that adds the 25% and that the restaurant needs to opt out to stop adding the cost.

Yeah, but the point is adding salt raises the "Classification" to processed. Using store bought chocolate chips raises it to ultra processed because it contains ultra processed ingredients.

I mean... different dishes have different names. Mashed avocados would probably just be called mashed avocados. Guacamole has many many regional versions, but I do think salt would be considered an essential ingredient in most of them. Salt would be a Group 2 ingredient. Nova calls out adding salt or sugar to Group 1 makes it Group 3, and specifically calls out Group 1 does not contain added salt.

"Minimally processed foods, that together with unprocessed foods make up NOVA group 1, are unprocessed foods altered by industrial processes such as removal of inedible or unwanted parts, drying, crushing, grinding, fractioning, roasting, boiling, pasteurization, refrigeration, freezing, placing in containers, vacuum packaging or non-alcoholic fermentation. None of these processes add salt, sugar, oils or fats, or other food substances to the original food." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10260459/

Salt is Group 2, isn't it? (Salt is present unless you make a low sodium guacamole or it's a recipe I've never seen)

Salt is the Group 2 ingredient that I was mentioning. Nova calls out adding salt or sugar to Group 1 makes it Group 3, and specifically calls out Group 1 does not contain added salt.

"Minimally processed foods, that together with unprocessed foods make up NOVA group 1, are unprocessed foods altered by industrial processes such as removal of inedible or unwanted parts, drying, crushing, grinding, fractioning, roasting, boiling, pasteurization, refrigeration, freezing, placing in containers, vacuum packaging or non-alcoholic fermentation. None of these processes add salt, sugar, oils or fats, or other food substances to the original food." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10260459/

The OP said "relevant individual on the left calling for violence".

I guess we can quibble about "relevant", but none of those examples really fits the criteria as it stands.

"Many People" - anyone relevant? And were they calling for violence?

The Democrat who wished a political opponent "two bullets to the head" did so in personal texts 3 years ago. Not exactly calling for it, let alone nationally on television.

"Cheering for Luigi" - again relevant people who did? And called for violence?

Guacamole would count as Group 3 I believe. You use Group 1 and Group 2 ingredients to create it unless you're just grinding up avocados, in which case that's not a guacamole. If you really want to get interesting, you could even say homemade guacamole uses citric acid (from limes) to extend shelf life and enhance the flavor, which is on top of the sodium chloride (salt) that you use to do the same.

I was more commenting on the uses of xanthum gum to be helpful, but reading through the Nova classifications... They seem problematic in the exact way you're describing here and are at best a proxy for nutrition that can be manipulated, using words like "simple food products" and "rare culinary use" is ripe for interpretation.

The bill itself calls out using USDA databases for various ingredients and various sections of federal regulations, so I can't comment too much about how they'd feel about xanthum gum without diving deep. Not to go off on a tangent, but just from the bill's text, I can say for sure they don't like nonnutritive sweeteners, which I think really hurts diabetics choices at reducing their reliance on insulin while still enjoying nice treats. Although not too important for a school meal, it's definitely part of the ultra processed conversation and why it's not a simple thing to categorize food into groups.

Man, you're missing a bunch of ingredients to actually make tasty cookies. Definitely need some salt. She's probably also using vanilla extract or purchased chocolate chips (or chunks) or cinnamon. Plus the leavening agent, so baking powder (or baking soda and another acid). That's all just for the basic cookies, there's so many options out there using stuff like malted chocolate powder, and that's ignoring making palatable gluten-free cookies.

Xantham gum is used quite often for gluten-free foods. It can really help make a usable gluten-free loaf of bread and sauces as well. It's purchaseable at plenty of grocery stores and is sometimes included in flours, it's been a boon for those living gluten free.

Yeah, I had to look up the bridge names. The "I-90 bridge" is actually both the Homer M. Madley and Lacey V Murrow Memorial bridges, and that's excluding the two bridges that are east of Mercer Island. I wanted to be more exact, and at that point I also added the 520 bridge's real name.

The two longest floating bridges in the world are in Seattle, Washington. The longest, Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, has a mixed use lane for cycling and walking and supposedly took 5 years to construct after construction started (ignoring that it replaced a bridge that existed there and also planning took longer, I'm not sure how to compare that). Seattle also has the world's only floating bridge that has rail on it, Homer M. Hadley Memorial Bridge, which is also the world's 5th longest floating bridge. While not the same exact sort of feat of engineering, it's pretty cool.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Point_Floating_Bri... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_V._Murrow_Memorial_Bri... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_M._Hadley_Memorial_Bri...

"Requires support" does not mean you are completely incapacitated without that support, nor does it mean you will always require the same support. If your life shifted from surviving ok-ish to thriving and improving when you found tools to help yourself, to me that sounds like you were meaningfully incapacitated before.

There are many conditions that a key point of diagnosis is impact to your life, and that's a conversation to have with the practitioner doing the diagnosis. It's a starting point not a bar, unfortunately nuance gets lost a lot once it's talked about in the social sphere/used as common parlance.

For anyone who feels this way about the grocery store, I'd highly recommend curbside pickup or online ordering. Some stores are getting rid of it, but plenty still offer it. If you live in a large enough city, grocery delivery can also pretty competitive in pricing if you're willing to negotiate on brands.

In the DSM-5, they merged several conditions into one diagnosis called Autism Spectrum Disorder. At the same time, they defined ASD as having levels 1, 2, and 3. Those levels are defined by how much support the individual needs. Level 1 is "requiring support", level 2 is "requiring substantial support", and level 3 is "requiring very substantial support". Asperger's diagnosis would generally correspond with Level 1 ASD.

That doesn't really help with the social side of describing it though.

By default bluesky blocks adult content, once you enable it you can dial in what kind of adult content you wish to see. I know this is all anecdotal, like the links you posted... But I started a new account to see what it's like. I can scroll the default algorithm for 5 minutes and not see anything questionable, and my actual account exists with adult content turned on and I never see it. After signing up the new account, I can search for furry or diaper content, but it appears that none of it is like "nsfw" (mostly just people in furry costumes or diapers but no sexual content or nudity).

Just to solidify, I just went and created a new account to ensure I was right, and I was. You need to go to your settings, go to moderation, and enable adult content. I scrolled continuously for 5 minutes straight and saw no adult content on a default account. And on top of this, as far as I can google, Bluesky has never had adult content enabled by default, so if you are seeing it, you enabled it.

It actually takes effort to see furry and diaper porn. I'm pretty sure Adult Content is disabled by default and needs to be enabled.

I think only concentrating on those that were shot or injured ignores the impact of being exposed to gun violence, especially during formative years in a situation where it's in the building you're in and results in the death or injury of your friends. Hundreds of thousands of people in the USA have experienced being in a school shooting event.

I also think that it's fair to think about other examples of exposure to violence and not just the Parent's example of weekly school shootings. Speaking of gun violence, I'm not sure I know anyone personally in the USA who haven't been impacted by it, whether that's knowing someone who was hurt, having to lock down at work or home, having to drive a different route home because of an active shooting, or just hearing it and then hearing the sirens. Of course, these are not all equal, but it's interesting to think about.

That was one of the main arguments by some of my coworkers and friends when COVID came up socially. I specifically remember a coworker at a FAANG saying something along the lines of "It's a bioweapon, so it's basically an act of war".

Somehow this and the parent both represent Amazon. Daily questions and a yearly survey that security had to assure us was legit.

Yeah, the GAO study was purely based on the U.S. Extremist Crime Database and that's clearly a limitation, although less of one than reading through a list of notable attacks on a wiki page. The page itself also is generally about terrorism, so it talks about both international and domestic throughout it which can be confusing. That's why I suggested looking at the actual studies linked to on the page, a lot of them do a better job of pointing out their time period and limitations than the brief overview on the page.

Also, the page only has pretty good resources up until like 2020, where it ends with a study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies which reviews data up to May 2020, and DHS which reviews data from 2018-2019. The CSIS one is pretty good because it includes graphs of data over time and really shows the worrying increase across the board but the staggering increase of "right-wing" violence since the mid 2010s.

CSIS has a few more studies more recently it looks like. There's https://www.csis.org/analysis/pushed-extremes-domestic-terro... from 2022, which shows that 49% of events were committed by far-right and 40% were far-left. However, the far-right were more likely to target people with guns and bombs and the far-left were more likely to target property with melee and incendiary weapons, so 28 of the 30 deaths were from the far-right while the far-left accounted for 1.

Then a few more years later, there's https://www.csis.org/analysis/rising-threat-anti-government-.... Which is more about the increase in "partisan political belief" based attacks, and then gives some examples instead of breaking it down further.

However, CSIS likewise uses their own database of attacks, and in between the other studies and the most recent one it appears they changed their methodology of what attacks were included to make it more strictly about an attempt or threat to kill (which would remove a lot of the property based attacks from the previous study), premeditation, and desire to strike fear broadly. I'd be interested in seeing a revisitation of their previous methods with their new datasets, or even to actually be able to see the dataset itself.

Are you analyzing the list of "Notable Domestic Terrorist Attacks" on that page? Which has already been filtered by some criteria of notability?

A more complete list is actually prompted at the top of that section and is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Stat....

However, you've possibly read that already since you're 41% number appears to be sourced from that page and is specifically talking about deaths and not events from 9/11/2001 to 2017. That 41% is heavily influenced by the deadliest event which was the Orlando Shooting, and if you look at the overall picture, 73% of events were perpetrated by white supremacists.

Honestly, directly reading the GAO study and the other, more recent, studies is a lot more illuminating and illustrates the growing issue of white supremacy and far-right political violence.

I'm not sure a blanket statement like that can be made just because this will be so subjective and anecdotal. From a brief google, it would look pretty split. AI summary falls on the homemade cake mix side, but reading through some of the blog posts from both sides, I would really hesitate to view any of them as reliable just because bakers are going to be biased towards their preferred method, both psychologically and skill-wise. From my experience in baking competitions, my family and I have had better luck with homemade mixes.

I'm not disagreeing since taste is subjective, and for blind taste tests I could definitely see most people choosing what they are used to which would probably be box mixes. I'd be interested to see if culturally it's different since I think box mixes are generally more popular in the USA.

Drivers are given the latitude to kick passengers off public transportation for a range of reasons including violating the rules of conduct.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're talking about panhandling as an example of asshole activity that you believe is protected by the 1st amendment. Specifically, in NYC, it was ruled that panhandling is not protected speech on public transportation, see Young v New York City Transit Authority.

Of course, if the passenger refuses to leave or stop, the driver can't physically force them to and must escalate to a police force. Although, I imagine that's similar in many other countries as well.

There's a transcript of the video in the description nowadays. It's not always great to read or scrub through, but it's a text version.