"Journalism" has to compete with the likes of TikTok these days in terms of information availability, and TikTok (and it's infinite scrolling ilk) are not subject to the same principles that traditional journalism has been.
It makes perfect sense that the modern press has devolved to a 24-hour rumor mill; if they hadn't, they'd be even more irrelevant.
Might this be due to the fact (or at least something I've heard) that TLC SSDs maintain some initial portion as SLC for speed reasons?
Also I'm not sure simply keeping the drive powered on is sufficient to prevent degradation you'd have to actually read from the blocks in order for ECC and relocation to kick in. But maybe the SSD firmware does that in the background.
Not that it's a perfect source, but reddit lawyers used to describe the difficulty of proving entrapment by laying out two requirements: (1) you wouldn't have committed the crime if the instigator wasn't law enforcement, and (2) you only committed the crime because the instigator was law enforcement. One or the other is not enough. Like an 'if and only if' deal.
If you aren't aware that it's an LEO urging you on, I don't see why you should be able to argue impropriety. You made the decision as if it were real and would have real consequences.
Specifically re: git, I think a more fair comparison (than deep git vs. shallow git knowledge) is about learning how to use automation tools vs understanding the processes that they automate.
Case in point, there is an employee in my office who, after attaining a 4-year CS degree, was unaware that "git" wasn't "GitHub". GitHub is so aggressively pushed on new programmers that they don't even need to know that git exists, much less how it works. Actions that don't have a large colorful button may as well be impossible for someone so thoroughly dependent on tools-in-the-middle.
In the "How to work for Mr Beast" leak, the "no doesn't mean no" section absolutely boggles my mind.
For decades (probably centuries!), the phrase "don't take no for an answer" has always been a common sales technique. If the customer says they aren't interested, you don't necessarily just walk away from the sale. You can continue to try. Why wouldn't they have used that extraordinarily common phrase? The paragraph under the header only ever describes the same concept.
Who thought it was appropriate to negate the "no means no" phrasing that has almost exclusively referred to sexual consent for all recent memory?
> Who thought it was appropriate to negate the "no means no" phrasing that has almost exclusively referred to sexual consent for all recent memory?
Most likely he did it for the same reason any of his video titles are what they are. He's an influencer (or these days, a corporation pretending to be an influencer); he lives and breathes clickbait.
PBMs finally being on the chopping block is 20+ years overdue, and the American public have consistently refused to accept that drug manufacturers aren't solely responsible for high drug prices. Having worked with the JDRF in the past, it's never been a secret that while the list price of insulin has been going up...the net revenue per unit has actually gone down (albeit only slightly). Total profit has been scaling upwards because of a massive push of type 2 patients towards insulin, increasing sales volume.
Knowingly pushing type 2 patients towards insulin when cheaper, better options for them might exist can 100% be blamed on the manufacturers; however, the oft-maligned list price increases have a lot to do with the mostly-secret negotiations between manufacturers, PBMs, and health plans (many of which share ownership with the PBMs). A big effect of those negotiations helps to artificially increase the amount of dollars spent on drugs (on paper) while also artificially decreasing the actual dollars spent, making it easier for health plans to hit the ACA 80/20 rule with elevated premiums.
All of this to say...none of these price negotiations or middlemen entities (I'm counting health plans as middlemen between patients and their drugs...) should be targeted by the FDA, as that's not their responsibility. The FDA should be focused on the clinical side only as much as possible. Much to my chagrin, some amount of credit for PBMs and drug rebates being part of the modern conversation goes to the Trump administration.
They may be hitting the 80/20 rule W/R/T PPACA premiums but the out of pocket for almost everything not negotiated by the executive branch is out of this world. Common generics have become crazy expensive. Don't even go to the on-patent meds: They're unaffordable for all but large employer plans and the policies covering Federal employees.
They only hit the 80/20 because of the account-keeping shenanigans allowed by the PBM/manufacturer/plan negotiations. It would not surprise me if the rebate system were completely done away with and health plans had to spend the real amount compared to what they "spend" now, that premiums would go down and/or coverage would go up. I don't believe for a second that there are any such backroom negotiations involving a mostly-invisible 3rd party (the PBMs) that benefit patients in any way.
My (recent) experience with Kayak is that when you do finally pick a flight to book, it only redirects you to the carrier site where you book it manually. This was once for United and once for Delta. Is that interaction maybe carrier-dependent?
>I don't think you realize you're arguing against all laws here?
How does the relative concept of "less demand begs less supply" translate into an absolutist eradication argument in your mind?
Ignoring you moving the goalpost from a conversation about law enforcement personnel to a conversation about the legal code. See next.
How does a comment on law enforcement personnel supply (ie: the enforcement part of law enforcement) logically migrate to a comment on the legal code's existence?
I made no such argument. I made a rhetorical point that meant to imply that law enforcement personnel supply (relative ability to enforce the law in any given area), and their techniques, are the outcome of criminality.
Given that LE lying to suspects is not "misbehavior" but a standard investigative technique that falls comfortably within a just legal system.
All evidence has to be disclosed. There are already justifiably harsh laws against falsifying evidence for the purpose of charging suspects.
Suspects have the right to shut up and to an attorney, both of which will fully protect them from being coerced into giving false confessions.
The article is about a case where it was not truthfully disclosed:
>Bradford recalls police making threats and lying to him about DNA evidence they said proved he committed the crime. After hours of interrogation, he confessed, hoping the evidence would acquit him.
"Falsifying evidence" does not apply when it's words spoken during an interrogation. If his confession became fruit of the poisoned tree due to lying to him, it wouldn't have been an issue. At least 10 years of this man's life was lost because non-existent evidence was claimed in an interrogation.
>Given that LE lying to suspects is not "misbehavior" but a standard investigative technique that falls comfortably within a just legal system.
Several other countries don't rely on this "technique". Surely you don't think American cops are so incompetent they can't catch anyone without it.
>Suspects have the right to shut up and to an attorney, both of which will fully protect them from being coerced into giving false confessions.
Except the suspects typically do not know the rules of the game they're being forced to play. The "I want a lawyer, dog" guy knew he had a right to an attorney, he didn't know you need to prompt engineer the police.
>The article is about a case where it was not truthfully disclosed
Meaning that evidence has to be disclosed for trial, after it would serve as part of the predicate for charging the suspect. Though, you knew that.
If the evidence doesn't exist then the charge won't come unless there was a confession. Many such confessions are real. Which is part of why lying about evidence is an investigative technique.
In other words, they won't be politically successful in making a long-standing investigative technique illegal for the sake of suspects. Not when it puts real murderers, and other actually guilty and violent people, behind bars when no other tack was available. Often, these confessions lead to the necessary other evidence. The defense against this tactic is silence and an attorney.
A suspect always has to have an attorney. They should request one ASAP, and keep requesting one while keeping silent. It is ridiculous to assume that cops wouldn't put masses of innocents in jail, should attorney's and the law that protects defendants not exist.
Which means that this particular conversation rests on a silly assumption that a code can protect people in itself, without an attorney. It can't. It won't ever. Make lying illegal: it won't matter in the slightest. What's the concept here: that the law is supposed to protect a suspect in the absence of an attorney, because what? An attorney will arrive later to make sure that the cops follow the letter of the law and to threaten the cops for something that was asked and answered when they weren't present? Good luck with that. It might work a handful of times, and not after. The fact is that suspects need an attorney before they speak, always. Its the only protection.
Evidence does not have to be disclosed as a part of an interrogation. To imply that it might is ridiculous. It can also be lied about as an interrogation technique. The safety against these lies are silence and an attorney (and an innocent conscience as a far distant third).
>Surely you don't think American cops are so incompetent they can't catch anyone without it.
Its amazing that you think that you can be successful in anything with this type of condescending approach. Especially when you are the one that has to convince a large system to change. I can hear your teeth gnashing.
Why do all of the PalWorld dedicated server repos I see have a crazy amount of stuff going on? I run my friend group server using a 27-line Dockerfile[1], and that could even be compressed a bit without losing any functionality...
It makes perfect sense that the modern press has devolved to a 24-hour rumor mill; if they hadn't, they'd be even more irrelevant.