Squiddlioni

It’s me, I do it. But only when I need something to do to stay awake in hour five of today’s meetings to address the “quick turnaround” patch that I finished coding three weeks ago, but now they want a label to change and no one on the six teams that have somehow become involved seems to know who owns the package that the field the label represents belongs to, but they’re absolutely certain we need to programmatically retrieve the text in case the package owner changes it at some point, and someone remembers that the original developer wrote code to get the label text 16 years ago, but it was removed from the program two years before the project started using source control, and they have an old installer around here somewhere that we can decompile or trace with Wireshark to get the right RPC name (sharing their screen while they have a rummage for it, natch), and someone else volunteers that they might know how to get a version of the server application from around that time since the client and server versions have to match, but it’s technically the intellectual property of a different subcontractor who was just a guy in Alaska who passed away five years ago, but they’re sure they can convince his estate to burn it to a disk and mail it to me if they can just find the contact information…

Almost 20 years ago I convinced my high school library to let me install Debian on one of the computer groups. I found the “eject” command, and wrote a script that just invoked it with an argument to close the tray. I named that script “inject”. Being high schoolers, my friends and I made scripts to “eject” and “inject”, along with various beeps, and named the scripts suggestive and tawdry things. We all had a good giggle setting the systems off on their little routines and walking away.

I did this exact thing when contemplating getting a mini pc. I got an external drive and turned my Deck into a Kodi box. It’s been great, though it had trouble pushing 4K60, so I have it set up to output 1080. If you’re setting up something like Kodi it’s worth mentioning that the Deck uses KDE, so you can set window rules to always open the application fullscreen.

deleted by creator

Alright, you’ve convinced me that you’re either a disingenuous troll or a genuine fool. Either way, I think this conversation isn’t going to be productive. Have a good one.

Since you duplicated your link I’ll duplicate my response.

You’re linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC’s definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn’t mean that the ICC can’t prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.

Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC’s authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you’re saying.

You’re linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC’s definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn’t mean that the ICC can’t prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.

Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC’s authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you’re saying.

Which law? Laws have names and titles. They are published publicly and they can be linked to. Please provide a link to the law you are referring to.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that the ICC is the sole arbiter of whether something is genocide or not. Can you cite a source or precedent?

No, the ICC does not dictate if the United States formally recognizes a genocide. In fact, there is no singular domestic source for recognition of a genocide. See the Armenian Genocide for an example. US recognition of the Armenian Genocide was codified by US House and Senate resolutions in 2019, but even then the White House under the first Trump administration rejected the resolutions and declined to recognize it as a genocide.

This article in particular relates to Rep Tlaib hoping that the Amnesty International report will lead to her colleagues accepting this as a genocide, resulting in a change of policy and an arms embargo. I’m sure she would also like for there to be a formal recognition through a House resolution, but that is not necessary for arms supply policy to change.

ETA: The ICC was established to prosecute war crimes, including genocide, but is not the arbiter of whether the United States and its Congressional representatives recognize actions as genocide or not, which is the subject of this article.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. The anecdote happens to parallel the scientific consensus, but “I’m told that dentists can tell” isn’t an appropriate argument when discussing medical research.

The link above is not reputable and was directly refuted by, among others, the American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, the American Association for Dental Research, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Harvard School of Dental Medicine itself. From the response letter signed by the dean of the HSDM:

The magazine article states that CWF “does not appear to have any benefits in adults” based on the results of the Cochrane systematic review. However, the Cochrane review did not make this conclusion. Rather, the review specifically states “We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.” Due to the lack of studies that met the inclusion criteria, the Cochrane authors were not able to make any conclusion on the effect of CWF on adults. In fact, there are studies that were not included in the Cochrane review that demonstrate a caries preventive benefit of CWF in adults.

See the letter I linked for the studies it’s referencing with a demonstrated benefit to adult teeth. The Cochrane review’s inability to conclude whether there was a benefit or not was a limitation of the Cochrane review’s inclusion criteria, and not an absence of studies indicating a benefit.

The source is not as reputable as it appears. The article in question is not from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and in fact was condemned by the HSDM. The actual dental experts at Harvard requested a formal retraction of the article: “Based on the significant flaws in the magazine article, we respectfully request that the article be rescinded, and a correction be published to clarify any misleading information that was provided.”

Thank you for the link. It’s worth mentioning that there are response letters to the publication you linked from other experts, the majority of which are critical and point out misinterpretations and omissions by the author. It’s always good to question, but in this instance it looks like the consensus amongst experts evaluating that publication is still that fluoridation is safe and improves dental health. The response letters can be read here.

Edit to add: The responses include a letter from the dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine stating that the publication is deeply flawed and requesting a retraction, and a similar condemnation from the students of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The article was given greater weight by being linked to Harvard, but in fact Harvard dental experts explicitly disagree.

One of my all-time favorites!

It’s called Brook’s Law. It takes a lot of time and effort getting people up to speed, and that takes experienced devs away from coding. You also have to get them credentialed, teach them the tools, need extra code reviews/testing/bugfixes while they learn the quirks and pitfalls of the code base, etc. In the long term you’ll be able to get more done, but it comes at the cost of short term agility.