yasp

How does Bitwarden protect against a malicious mobile app update?

> One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

So does that mean that this decision came from the Sulzbergers? If only our hall monitors could turn their gaze inward.

What would we do without our hall monitors?

> most lost their shirts

or in this case, their pants :)

You're not going to get an answer to that here. But I've found Chris Knobbe's arguments to be convincing.

Weird, it's still up on YouTube. Maybe driven by flagging and different algorithms across the two platforms.

Was this not obvious from the outset? Do these people not consider the consequences of their actions beforehand?

How is something which wouldn't exist without the help of food scientists, and possibly microbiologists, "100% natural"?

That's a non sequitur.

How do groups of people not have the rights of people?

FFS. I forgot about that.

FYI one study shows that rapamycin increases amyloid-beta protein plaques in the brains of mice.

https://neurosciencenews.com/rapamycin-amyloid-beta-20770/

The same philosophical chain of reasoning would lead to government provided boyfriends and girlfriends, so I'm not sure about this line of argument.

I agree! That's why I take issue with calling X or Y human rights. It misleads the average person person into thinking that there is actually is such a thing as a human right, rather than the term just meaning "thing we really like".

With that being said, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that assertions about human rights by organizations such as the UN be internally consistent. The UN claims that human rights are universal. Human rights such as to food, shelter, medicine, etc. fail this universality. To provide them requires taking resources from others and reallocating them. Therefore, they are conditional upon the ability of a society to reallocate these resources. Therefore, they cannot be human rights, and assertions to the contrary should be identified as being politically motivated.

OK, and here I was thinking that human rights were premised on a philosophical basis. Thank you for clarifying that they are merely a political matter.

If we are to assume that human rights are universal (the UN says so), premise two is invalid, as it is not universalizable.

An organization saying X doesn't make X true.

Perhaps OP meant to write "According to the UN, having a roof over ones head is a basic human right."

> Having a roof over ones head is a basic human right.

Prove it.

> Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

The School for Poetic Computation, maybe.

Safer than eating glyphosate (people actually do this).

principal-agent problem.

Have you had your vitamin d levels checked? Worth checking out what Dr. Stasha Gominak has written on the subject.

TFA indicates they plan to compete on power usage.

When a crime is effectively decriminalized, your crime numbers that depend on the victimized reporting it become garbage.

Palantir can host its products on-prem, and for the FBI very well might have. But where it was hosted wouldn't have any relevance here.