Indeed

TACO

Awesome, totally sidestepped any processing i had to catch the meaning, but always appreciate a multi layer Linux reference :)

I mean from their perspective, they would call the ‘base’ we use ‘22’. Unless I’m missing the joke in there about a calculator?

We use base 22

Well, ‘proven wrong’ is a bit of a stretch. ‘will soon block screen capture’ doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room, but also isn’t that crazy to read into it that maybe it would block screen capture on the presenters screen… especially if you grant that it might only have control over the teams portion of the screen. I’ve had it black out windows on my own machine even when not presenting.

But further than that, it’s not fair to say everything has to be read only from the most or the least charitable viewpoints. Context is a thing and if you’re even a little bit familiar with the history of software enshittification, it’s reasonable to assume that an uncharitable reading is fair without assuming the app will now melt your computer for spare parts if you try something that is disallowed. ‘As shitty as we can get away with’ might be a good rule of thumb.

That’s a charitable reading, and likely justified by the article, but based only on the phrasing, it’s just as likely to read that as assuming Microsoft will block all content in order to ensure the safety of sensitive data. Sniff tests have to be adapted when things tend to stink in general, or companies regularly try to cover up their smell.

That is arguably worse

That’s a big leap… Dumb blonde to beating women.

Little odd of course, but not the worst way to try to illustrate more than 1/4 but not 1/2… Which seems to be in the ballpark of the number he mentioned. If 40% of spousal murders are committed by women it fair to say it’s not “always men”, but it is more than half but less that 3/4.

Did you typo or did he? .03 is significantly bigger than .004

I would have until this comment :)

For sure it’s a two part thing, but regardless of the increased cost of US cars due to other tariffs, the price will still include the opportunistic gaming US car companies will play based on the car tarrif trump is stupidly rotting with.

Conceivably the only benefit the auto tarrif will do is allow US companies try to remain competitive against foreign companies who won’t have to deal with the materials tariffs he’s stupidly straddling US companies with.

The problem here isn’t the increased price of goods, it’s the fact that Trump knows increasing the price of non-US built cars via tarrif gives US car companies an advantage that could be used to sell more cars for less money, but will really just give US car companies the opportunity to raise prices any amount they choose, as long as it’s slightly less than the tarrif, thereby making more money and enjoying the advantage of not paying the tariffs. People will still buy cars, and they might buy American cars because they’re now a little cheaper than non-US… But if they do this, the tariffs will pretty much only result in higher priced cars across the board instead of affordable IS cars vs expensive foreign ones.

Basically someone explained to Trump one of the many ways the tariffs will be backfiring, and he’s ineffectually asking companies not to do that.

Problem is that a well paid and well educated workforce will make more money ‘sometime after the next quarter’ and in a diffuser way spread evenly across the board.

Stiffing people and withholding raises will show a profit within a quarter someone’s bonus is based on.

Guess which option the people who get the bonuses will pick.

Honestly the ‘fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value’ might be the phrase we’ll look back on as the downfall of the human race.

Seriously, what can possibly make that worth adding?

But you said there was probably cause, and then brought up a bunch of stuff there’s no reason to assume the cops ‘knew’ before arresting him.

Yet you suggest there was enough to know how bad contained cash and he was on a bus from New York

Are you guessing at this, or are you claiming that is what was actually reported?

My understanding is that it was an employee at the restaurant that reported him. ‘Mall adjacent to a bus stop’ seems a little less ‘first hand account that he was on a bus from New York’ and more circumstancial like ‘he came in at the same time as some others, had a different color hoodie and different color backpack than the description, but very broadly matched “white guy with hoodie”’.

Basically exactly what should get an improper arrest thrown out if you detain someone without cause, fail to Mirandize, search them and then find something incriminating.

Probably? Based on what? McDonalds around you often note which bus you get off of, do they?