The sad reality is that most of the people reading your comment and mine are naturally going to be privileged enough to have literacy education, internet access, and the spare time to browse the internet.

Too many leftists think locally and not globally; underprivileged individuals in other countries half a world away are easy for them to disqualify as an “out of context problem”, when we should all be in this together: global intersectionality.

Jesus fuck thank you, it’s so hard seeing a bunch of doomer shit in threads like this

You’re thinking of BD-R: BD-RE can be rewritten/erased hundreds of times

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_recordable

Great answer, and to add to this:

There’s a world of difference between someone who’s single, not satisfied with it, and actively desiring/seeking a relationship (single and looking) and someone who actively self-identifies as inherently doomed to be single due to the actions/perceptions of others (incel).

People in the former category NEVER call themselves incels.

I totally agree, though I wrote this in the context of OPs post specifically saying (emphasis mine):

I have seen in many US shows where they portray guys who are living with parents as losers, or there are jokes or memes about it, I never get it.

Scrolled through the thread long enough and I still only see people blaming stigma and capitalism but… Those are just the end effects.

It’s plain toxic masculinity:

• A man must be strong
• Independence is a sign of strength
• Living with your parents is dependence (for good or for bad is irrelevant)
• ipso facto, according to toxic masculinity, guys who live with their parents are weak and not “real men”

Yep, the other workaround that’s elsewhere in this thread is to set up an entry with a different authoritative DNS in the hosts file, allowing a single machine to resolve the old domain manually.

This could be part of a greater effort, basically asking other instances to help the users evacuate the instance and transfer their accounts, before running tootctl self-destruct

OP, this title is stupidly misleading and incorrect, you should change it immediately.

The Taliban seized the DOMAIN, aka the ownership of the queer.af name that people could type into their browsers, and their system would resolve into an IP address.

As the Taliban control Afghanistan, (see where the domain comes from), this was inevitable and the instance owners were already planning to retire the instance as they didn’t want to give money to the Taliban to keep it up.

The INSTANCE, aka the physical server, was not in Afghanistan, and still has its IP address(es), and so has had absolutely nothing happen to it.

It can also be used to make methamphetamine.

I feel like her reply is just as likely to be to call him a race traitor or whatever. It’s hard to reason with people who gatekeep that hard

If the GOP wanted to counterattack, they could always start funding hyper-progressive candidates too 🙂

I’d honestly prefer raw parroting in most cases, even if it’s “obviously” wrong. I don’t want people selectively interpreting the facts as have been conveyed to them, unless they’re prepared to do a proper peer review.

Though btw, I also think it’s fascinating the difference if you look up Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2 MW" vs Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2MW"

You’ll get different articles entirely

I googled Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2 MW" and EVERY article covering this has also cited 2 MW.

Now, under Occam’s Razor, what’s more likely:

1. Absolutely none of the article writers have any clue what the difference between a MW and a MWh is because none of them remember any physics
2. Some of them could suspect that it’s wrong, but an authoritative source of the claim wrote/said 2 MW capacity when they meant “2 MW peak generation” or “2 MWh storage” (I’d presume Gravitricity, but I’m struggling to find such a source, myself)
3. One writer miswrote/misquoted as per 2, and everyone is mindlessly recycling that original article’s contents with no attribution or care.

I don’t know which one it is. But I’d generally lean against 1.

Damn, Steamboat Willie going into public domain really has Disney tightening the purse strings /s

The FDA regulation on Net Weight is found in 21 CFR 101.105. In this regulation FDA makes allowance for reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice. FDA states that variations from the stated quantity of contents should not be unreasonably large.

While FDA does not provide a specific allowable tolerance for Net Weight, this matter could come under FTC jurisdiction. FTC has proposed regulations that would unify USDA and FDA Net Contents labeling and incorporate information found in the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Handbook 133.

NIST Handbook 133 specifies that the average net quantity of contents in a lot must at least equal the net quantity declared on the label. Plus or minus deviation is permitted when caused by unavoidable variation in weighing and measuring that occur in good manufacturing practice. The maximum allowable variance for a package with a net weight declaration of 5 oz is 5/16 oz. Packages under-filled by more than this amount are considered non-compliant.

http://www.foodconsulting.com/q&a.htm

As a Bay area native, I’ve never encountered worse drivers than the entire state of Maryland.

An API token is more secure than a password by virtue of it not needing to be typed in by a human. Phishing, writing down passwords, and the fact that API tokens can have restricted scopes all make them more secure.

Expiration on its own doesn’t make it more secure, but it can if it’s in the context of loading the token onto a system that you might lose track of/not have access to in the future.

Individual API tokens can also be revoked without revoking all of them, unlike a password where changing it means you have to re-login everywhere.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Lmk if you have questions, though.

Right?? To let your website be susceptible to that kind of act by anyone means that you probably didn’t really care about security in the first place, so much as just getting the magic lock icon happy.

Right? Like fuck Google and all, but can you imagine how many absurdities would have to have happened in order for it to be blocked?