A lot of these cases that npm reports are denial of service vulnerabilities (and marked high risk!). I just tried it on a project I have, and 11 out of 15 are DOS vulnerabilities in code that I run locally. When the normal user is using a project only locally, and the issue is DOS, it's hard to argue "but maybe someone will eventually put it online" and therefore I need to drop what I'm doing and patch my dependencies. (Yes, sometimes that would be the only way to satisfy npm, since the semver rules prevent it from fixing things automatically.)
Googling Stackoverflow itself can sometimes be a high expertise skill, simply because sometimes you need a fairly good understanding of your issue to figure out what to search for. A recent example: we had an nginx proxy set up to cache API POST requests (don't worry - they were idempotent, but too big for a query string), and nginx sometimes returned the wrong response. I'm pretty sure I found most of the explanation on Stackoverflow, but I didn't find a question that directly addressed the issue, so Googling was a challenge. You can keep your job finding answers on Stackoverflow of you are good at it.
Rich people don't usually get handouts from the government, but they get something more valuable - a social order, enforced by the government, that allows them to be rich. Suppose you were rich, but you lived in a place where rich people tended to get kidnapped and held for ransom - being rich wouldn't be quite as good of a deal. The social order disproportionately benefits the rich, so they should pay more to keep it going.
Whatever criticism Israel may or may not deserve over its current bombing campaign, you aren't going to convince anyone if you misuse phrases like "murdered in cold blood". That's just not what those words mean.
We like arguing in hypotheticals here on HN so lets bring a modified trolley problem into the discussion:
This modified version has the trolley heading steady on course to the next station, there is nobody on the track and nothing will happen if you leave it alone. However you stand next to a lever, and if you pull the lever you will divert the trolley and it will hit 200 people (some are criminals but most aren’t). You have ample time to think it over. If the trolley passes, you still have the option to pull the lever and the next trolley will hit those 200 people. You know full well what happens if you pull the lever. You also know you will not be punished if you do.
Say you are an observer in this modified version, and you observe me pulling the lever. 200 people are now unessisary dead because of my action. Do you consider me a cold blooded murderer?
I know its not, that was sort of the point here. I made sure to qualify this with arguing in hypotheticals before coming up with the scenario.
Starting this sub-thread with a debate about what makes a cold blooded murder is another way of taking the debate into arguing hypotheticals and is not a good-faith tactic. What I did here is simply taking the bait and continuing to the logical next step.
I don't understand your argument. You want to point out that this is terrible, and in an ideal world, no one should be bombing anyone? Of course! That doesn't mean you should say, e.g. that Israelis are cannibals just because cannibalism is bad.
How is it not cold blooded murder then? The bombing is a killing. It is deliberate. It is done with ample preparation time and not under fire. You said it was misuse of the term. What keeps it from being proper to not call it cold blooded
The nations can do what they want special pleading is the only argument I can see against murder but it would be an inconsistent one. Fiven the sheer number of state acts called murder completely unchallenged as such. Since WWII at least "at war" isn't an excuse for murder. While they may have called retaliatory executions for partisans war it was never called anything but murder in WW2.
Can you explain why I am misusing the phrase? I believe it to be objectively accurate.
Again, that phrasing might make people uncomfortable. as I wrote above. I understand that, and I understand why people desire to censor it. But I don't believe it's incorrect, which is another thing entitely.
I'd like to think I would have resisted responding, but I see another response that doesn't answer your question, so, oh well-
The dictionary seems to use "murder" for premeditated killing. Even if you think Israelis are the devil incarnate, killing children doesn't serve their interests. You have to go pretty far into conspiracy territory to believe they secretly want those children to die, and then turn around and explain to everyone how they try to prevent those kids from dying. It certainly serves Hamas's interests more than it serves Israeli interests.
Google's dictionary returns "without emotion or pity; deliberately cruel or callous" for cold-blooded. See above. Any reasonable pro- or anti-Israel position would concede that Israelis would be happier without civilian casualties.
> You have to go pretty far into conspiracy territory to believe they secretly want those children to die
Not really: it's well-reported that Israeli policy reasons about Arabs primarily in demographic terms. A stated Israeli priority is to keep low the number of Arabs in its territory. It's not even a secret.
You might find this so abhorrent and morally indefensible to be unlikely, but really it's just another day in the Middle East.
You are arguing that bombs killing less than 0.02% of Palestinian children is going to solve Israel's demographic problem and Israel would like to do that despite all the abuse they will receive from the rest of the world for doing so? Like, fine, assume absolute evil, why not, but evil and stupid simultaneously? Hence "conspiracy territory".
> You are arguing that bombs killing less than 0.02% of Palestinian children is going to solve Israel's demographic problem
No I'm not, I'm just pointing out that this sort of attitude is obviously a natural result of their stated intent.
> evil and stupid simultaneously?
Stupid is a given, considering Occam. Asymmetrical warfare in general has been "propaganda-stupid" ever since Jewish tradition popularized David and Goliath. Yet armies still routinely engage in it, because propaganda is only one dimension of a conflict. Being stupid, however, doesn't exclude being anything else.
Is it a conspiracy theory, then, that the US engaged in the premeditated killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, deliberately obliterating an area much wider than the legitimate military targets in those cities - that they in fact wanted a large number of civilians to die - and then turned around and argued (almost certainly correctly!) that they were actually trying to minimize civilian casualties by not bombing Tokyo or mounting a land invasion? Is it improbable to believe that an entire chain of command authorized those deaths without emotion? Does it require believing that Americans, as a whole, are the devil incarnate for such a thing to have happened?
Like I said, maybe the words make people uncomfortable. But I don't think they are untrue.
You can have your beliefs, but that doesn't make them facts.
Meanwhile a cleptocratic regime is firing missiles at civlians using as launching pads hospitals, kindergartens or office buildings housing international journalists.
>office buildings housing international journalists.
Weird how those journalist agencies themselves missed that.
What's the slow colonisation with settlements about? Liberation of land controlled by evil terrorists?
Also as far as Israel is concerned there is no recognised regime or other such government there. It's apparently a stateless area with stateless people to be slowly ethnically cleansed.
> Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that destroying the Jala high-rise block in Gaza on Saturday was justified
There’s a pretty big difference between a politician (even one less flagrantly corrupt than Netanyahu) making a claim about their conduct of war and that claim being true.
I agree. I unsuccessfully tried finding an article I read a couple days ago that contained quotes from the head of the BBC office declaring that Hamas had no presence in the building. They said they actively check to the best of their ability because Israel is known to bomb media buildings and blame it on Hamas' presence. They also stated Israel has provided no proof of its claims.
Google Docs seems so bare-bones. I recently couldn't find a way to format a series of chunks of text within a Google Doc as code, and I'm pretty sure that it simply doesn't support styles for anything but headings and body text. It just doesn't seem to be the same kind of tool as Word.
Normally I wouldn't comment just to say the equivalent of +1, but I hadn't encountered "The Inner Ring" before, and it's great! Thanks for the recommendation.
I didn't notice the contrast problem until seeing the GP comment, but I suspect that speckled backgrounds are worse than a solid #E8F7FA because they mess with people's ability to do edge detection when trying to see the shapes of the letters in the text.
There's a new technology that allows concrete producers to inject carbon dioxide into concrete. Two of the leading companies in this space are CarbonCure and Solidia.
There’s a whole economy around buying and selling carbon footprints. If you run a factory that does nothing but release CO2 into the atmosphere, you can legally be “carbon neutral” as long as you give enough money to green companies who do the work of offsetting your impact for you.
If you found yourself in a situation where getting food or shelter now was a matter of life and death, and you effectively had only one supplier, it would. But you usually have time to find alternatives, and usually can skip the shelter altogether, and the markets are so large that it's usually hard for a supplier to form a monopoly or a few to form oligopoly.
On top of that, even "pay-up-or-die" doesn't mean that the price will be a billion dollars. Instead, it means that it's the price that maximizes total profits. Suppose that no one could ever pay more than $30,000 for the medical helicopter. Then the helicopter people would set a price that prompts people to pay as close to $30,000 as they can. Perhaps if patients see a bill for $50,000 they negotiate down to $30,000, but if they see $500,000, they go to court and only at the end pay $30,000. Similar dynamics can limit food prices in areas that really only have one food supplier - there's only so much you can charge, and if you charge more than that, you won't succeed in squeezing more out of them, but you may attract all kinds of trouble - violence, or legislation, or competitors, etc.
Since half this thread gives workarounds, and since I had the same problem, I'll share my workaround: you can tell Google that a particular contact is your wife. There's a "relationship" field in contacts. Now I can say "call my wife" and it mostly works, although saying her name is still hopeless.
