2. This seems to mainly be a concern in places where a lot of rice is consumed and there is no legal limit for arsenic in rice (many parts of Asia), not necessarily in the US where there is an FDA limit and most people don’t eat rice every day.
3. It saves time, water, and energy compared to other ways of reducing arsenic, like using the excess water method with large excesses of water. Parboiling in with 4 times the water by weight and then cooking in 2 times the water by weight uses less water than cooking once in 10-12 times the water by weight (half the water). Heating half as much water to boiling reduces energy use and time (assuming constant heating power in W from the stove). Of course it’s still slower than cooking rice using the absorption method common in many places (this is not necessarily how people in some countries cook rice).

It leads to genuine confusion because of the difference between Mb and MB (and further MiB), so this is a good point to make in this case.

Definitely safer than nuclear /s

To be fair, if you look at the median graph it does go ever so slightly up, which I think qualifies as “outpaces.” It is certainly a lot less dire than if inflation was outpacing wages, at least wages keeping pace with inflation is sustainable.

Broken link?

Do you have a source on “wages outpac[ing] employment”?

I agree that that would be excellent, but I think there is still a difference, like Linux they do allow a company to use (but not for anything, only for some things) and enhance their open source software instead of paying for their service without contributing it back.

One difference (so far as I know, I’m not an expert on either situation) is that MongoDB requires copyright assignment for contributions seemingly because the license is so restrictive they can’t offer their own service under its terms (without open-sourcing all the software they use to host it). So far as I know Sentry does not require this (although the restriction against running a competing service does not affect them since they are the service, so I’m not sure this argument really holds up that well). Also the fact that that one encumbrance is released after two years helps their case a lot in my eyes.

They do allow you to profit off the software though, by using it to host the service for yourself (even as a company), you just can’t offer hosting as a service to compete with them. Obviously this doesn’t offer as much freedom as just a straight MIT or Apache license, but I feel like it still qualifies as open-source; they are only really adding one restriction, and it could even be considered less restrictive than something like GPL (no requirement to open source derived software). I think this license makes a good compromise of being as open as they possibly can without AWS/GCP/Azure eating all of their business without doing any real engineering work.

I think this is a pretty reasonable compromise to stop big cloud companies from offering their service using their code. Putting the code under either Apache or MIT after 2 years seems like a good approach to me, I like it a lot more than the ‘open core’ scheme a lot of SaaS companies use.

Asking the question does provide some value, because at least for me this is the first I’ve heard of the discontinuation of maintenance, and I use SearX.

How about the cookie to store the setting that you don’t want non-essential cookies?

Yes, most of those points are the concerns with warrant canaries. So far as we know the concept is totally untested in court so it’s hard to say what the result would be until it happens.

Updating the canary should require a human input (like a password to unlock the GPG key), which is not sometime the government would generally get access to (they make a request for data about XYZ user, and the company turns it over; they wouldn’t get actual access to the production system). The government could seek a ruling to force the company to update the canary, but as such a thing hasn’t been granted before (at least as far as we know), it’s not a guarantee. So, there is a chance that the warrant canary will serve to alert users to something happening, which is better than nothing. But because of its untested nature, it might be broken by a court.

I’m not sure I understand your point about “once it’s triggered it can’t be reset.” If a company fails to update their canary on schedule it means something happened that they can’t disclose. Once they are released from the NDA they can release a new canary explaining what happened.

My point is that in common use a pound does refer to mass (not weight). For example the US Code defines that 1 pound = 0.453 592 37 kilogram. See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass).

I think in most common usage people use pounds as a measure of mass (convertible to kg). It’s why when you really mean force the abbreviation lbf (pound-force) exists, as opposed to the now more usual pound-mass.

That actually could be useful, by having a completely external company send a notification without action by the company receiving the warrant, it may be possible to circumvent the prohibition on alerting users.

The idea is that there is no such action as “triggering the canary” that the government can stop them from taking. Instead they refrain from updating it, thus alerting people that something has occurred. However, since the point of a canary is that not updating it raises concerns, I’m not sure how this service makes any sense (alerts on new canaries?).

The idea is that there is a big difference between the government saying “don’t tell anyone about this” and saying “you must make a false statement (the canary) every X amount of time indefinitely.” In the past courts in the US have taken a fairly dim view of the government trying to compel speech. There are some example cases at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech#United_States.

What a painfully awful interview, she couldn’t even answer any of the questions because the answers would make “X” (or Elon) sound awful. Basically just a half hour of spewing random garbage to fill the time without answering any questions. And what’s up with her never letting the interviewer finish a question?

It’s not what free speech means, but they’re using his own words against him. Of course we clearly can’t expect any consistency from conservatives, “free speech for me” etc.

Based on this it looks like the user can choose article or note: https://github.com/Automattic/wordpress-activitypub/blob/163d9e931c407463bf254ce55bd45f400468982c/templates/settings.php#L158