I’m curious what you mean by “better moderation”? Are you comparing to specific instances? Or do you mean consistency, because it’s more centralized?

“A question: Would the flesh-beings like some tea?”

“I’m making an interjection: oopsie woopsie, HK made a mistake!”

🤢🤮

Meatbags?

I’m all seriousness, this is just another in a long litany of horribly oppressive actions taken by China’s government. Not looking forward to the US moving in that direction

Unfortunately, no, not really. They are absolutely able and willing to confiscate your devices at any time once you’re on Chinese soil, and once you’ve lost physical control, that’s the end of trust for that device. Even beyond that, it’s not unheard of for there to be vulnerabilities in Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc that make your device susceptible to wireless attacks. IMO it’s not worth the risk.

Here is just one example of this type of thing uncovered by The Guardian, New York Times, and others in a joint investigation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/02/chinese-border-guards-surveillance-app-tourists-phones

Do not bring your normal personal devices to China. They are notorious for injecting spyware on foreign devices at every opportunity. Use a freshly formatted device and create all new accounts to use with it.

Regarding services: do not use self-hosted services unless you you spin up fresh, isolated instances of your services for use while abroad and spin them down afterwards, including formatting any OS they were hosted on.

Regarding VPN: because we are assuming that any device used in China is compromised, do not connect to your VPN unless you have set up a segregated VLAN and are connecting through a VPN server instance created specifically for use while in China.

Basically, assume anything you use in China is compromised. And assume your connections are being monitored. And assume that any device you are connecting to from China is at risk of being compromised. So everything needs to be segregated from the rest of your network and set up specifically to be deleted after you’re back home.

This is primarily geographic

This is not news. It’s the most op-ed of op-eds. It’s a steaming, boiling, dare l say festering pile of bias

🍿

Yes. That’s the point. It feels worse for you, but better for them. If you want to be kind, deal with the discomfort. Otherwise just admit it’s not about the money and you’re just looking after yourself :)

Ok but that thumbnail looks like Sonic the Hedgehog, right? I can’t be the only one who sees it

“Emotions” is a very nebulous term. But we know that abstractions like guilt require certain types of brain function that is only found in humans, dolphins, etc

So yes, human emotion is indeed a sufficiently complex series of cause and effect. But that complexity is really important. And certain structures in the brain are necessary for things like self-awareness, abstraction, empathy, etc

For the record I believe that dolphins are non-human-persons. So I’m not a “humans are completely unique” kind of guy. But I also don’t anthropomorphize lower order animals :D

They aren’t warning other plants of danger. That’s an anthropomorphic interpretation.

They are releasing a chemical. Other plants respond to that chemical in a predictable, biological way.

There is no motive. No intent to save or protect. It’s not a warning. It’s just an evolutionarily advantageous sequence of cause and effect.

Just because object A’s behavior helps object B’s survival doesn’t mean it has feelings. Complex cause and effect can be emergent phenomena without specific intent

PROTIP: Whenever possible, shape/place the food you’re heating like a donut. ( O )

Microwaves need to penetrate the food; if it’s a big lump, it’s hard to reach the stuff in the middle. By using a “donut” shape, you are creating more surface area, and spreading out the “middle” so it’s easier for microwaves to reach all the parts of the food equally

Like others, I won’t comment on whether this is a good idea or not…

Consider that all of the changes happened over time. (Unless you’re speaking with a Queen’s English accent, which is a posh fabrication created by the upper class BUT I DIGRESS)

So, for example, take the word “water”. Look at the first syllable, ‘wat’. Imagine it with a British accent, then with an American one. Think about just the vowel, the A. Try to say that vowel out loud in one accent, and hold it, then slide to the other one.

It will take lots of careful thought but you can do a similar “slow slip” for consonants and entire words too.

Good luck, I guess?

… But the article is about the funding issue? I’m not willfully misunderstanding anything. I’m asking whether your statement is directly related to the article or just a tangent that is only marginally related.

You seem to have intentionally misrepresented the article’s content so that you could say “Not All CPS” which is just not a good look for you

It’s always something, isn’t it? If we have a good defense, no offense. Good quarterback? No offensive line. 7-3 record? Injury time!

This thread aged perfectly for Cleveland 🙃

This thread aged perfectly for Cleveland 🙃

As mentioned elsewhere, the article is talking specifically about Arizona, due to investigative reporting on their handling of the funds. I realize that it may not be true everywhere, but do you have a reason to believe Arizona does NOT have the problem called out in the article?

I don’t think the administration is making this move predicated on “putting children’s safety first”. They’re doing it because using funds that are earmarked for social safety net purposes (providing more support for families in need) to instead punish those who are in need of those funds - even when that punishment is deserved - does not address the thing the money was intended to resolve and this the request for funds is disingenuous.

We can roleplay this…

Person 1: “Hey, can I borrow $50? My impoverished sister can’t afford food for her family this week.”

Person 2: “Sure, here you go. Wait, what are you doing?”

Person 1: “Well, I think my neighbor might be neglecting their kids so I spent that $50 on investigating them, just in case.”

Person 2: “But I gave you the money to help your sister, not to investigate someone who may or may not have done anything wrong”

You see the problem?