In D&D this would pass a group stealth check because more than half of the group passed.

Shockingly, the app used to be worse. Of course, now today their ad backend is down so the app won’t work at all.

“Hey dad, the WiFi in my dorm room keeps cutting out”

“Have you gotten your Ethernet hooked up yet?”

“Hey dad, when I try to stream TV, it keeps buffering”

“Have you gotten your Ethernet hooked up yet?”

Someday they’ll get it.

That’s how they pay for Android. Just because you don’t pay a royalty doesn’t mean the software is free. (Even if it is libre)

So my point isn’t that there is some great threat from Republicans. It is just vastly more likely for any given kid to be abused by a Republican than by a drag queen. Yes, this is a population effect. This doesn’t mean we should single out Republicans for discrimination, just that they need to stop treating people who dress funny as an inherent threat.

But proportions aren’t really useful for protecting children when there isn’t a significant deviation from the general population. However, on a given day, a random child is much more likely to encounter a Republican child predator than a drag queen child predator. Now add in the overwhelming statistics that show child predators are usually known to and trusted by the child’s parents, and the emphasis that conservatives place in trusting those placed in authority above them, and you have a recipe for disaster.

So logically, since it is a much larger threat, a much larger effort should be made to protect children from Republicans.

Aside from inflation and limited benefit of upgrading, subscriptions for every little thing are depleting discretionary income.

Go into embedded software. You can’t do ads if there is no UI taps head.

What I’m saying is that if the hypothetical anti intolerance law had an objective definition of harm that did not include religious criteria (which is prohibited by the 1st amendment anyway) then it wouldn’t backfire like you suggest.

The US has an atheist government - it is right there in the first amendment - we just allowed the theists to stack the Supreme Court with other theists.

To restrict someone’s freedom, there needs to be demonstrable harm. “I don’t like it” isn’t harm. “My god doesn’t like it” isn’t harm.

I really like photon. It is very multi-alt friendly, and I can run my own instance of it locally.

Let’s remember that a bastard who married rich that had a good deal of influence on how our government works. He definitely was making sure that he had a future.

Yeah, I’ve been working in aerospace, automotive, industrial and rail safety for over 20 years. You don’t get to say “this software does thing” and then in the safety manual say “you don’t get to trust that the software will actually do thing”.

Further, when you claim the operator as a layer of protection in your safety system, the probability of dangerous failure is a function of the time between the fault (the software doing something stupid) and the failure (crash). The shorter that time, the less safe the system is.

Here’s a clue: Musk doesn’t know anything about software safety. Their lead in autonomous technology has less to do with technical innovation and more to do with cutting corners where they can get away with it.

Attempt? That was the original intent. They still wanted aristocracy, they just wanted it to be wealth based instead of hereditary.

So, the software doesn’t actually do anything, it just gives the illusion that it does. That’s sounds safe.

If you are relying on T&C as a get out of jail free card for your safety system, then it isn’t a safety system.

It is a nice break from my day job, where I am certifying software for critical systems.

sigh

Yes, so much. It drove me crazy when a car company argued “but our logs say it was the driver’s fault”. We’re arguing that your most critical software failed, and you want us to trust the logging subsystem?

The NTSC needs to be qualifying car software the same way the FAA qualifies aircraft software. We need to stop trusting the manufacturers to self police.

Again though, how often do those injuries happen in a pile vs when the players are in the open field? When the players are upright and moving fast, it is much more likely their feet will get stuck in the turf and make joints vulnerable. Meanwhile, players in a QB sneak are nearly horizontal, and it is much easier for their feet to come out of the ground.