Even if it is offensive to you, having such a broad non-specific policy about denying service for “offensive” clothing is ridiculous.

Say I, a lefty, am a flight attendent. Can I deny entry to anyone wearing a MAGA hat, an anti-trans (“try to milk a bull”) t-shirt, a vaguely threatening pro-gun (“come and take it”) shirt, a fur jacket, etc? I genuinely find such things offensive. So I can kick those people out? No? Tell me what is different about that. What about someone wearing a shirt that says “Aborting kids is not healthcare”? I can’t think of a more direct and likely parallel than that. Is that too offensive to board a plane? Explain to me why not. Explain it slowly and think about your words as you do.

His shirt didn’t even specify an event, any parties to the event, or any sort of threat. It is not explicitly about any specific person or party. It is about children in general and those who would bomb them and call that warfare. It was just stating a moral stance, and a pretty low bar one at that, one that most people would agree on without any other context projected on it. Her offense was almost certainly due to a projection of meaning that she put upon it, not even the shirt itself. A meaning that she assumed was true for no reason but her own and that she found offensive due to her personal politics around the parties or events she connected it to. How can you enforce a policy broad enough to allow someone to project a specific interpretation on a non-specific phrase and consider that projected meaning offensive, thereby barring them from the plane.

If I wear a shirt that says “he did nothing wrong” with no further context, do you get to decide who “he” is and bar me from you plane because maybe I mean someone who you think did do something wrong and you are offended by the alternative view? What if I actually mean a fictional character like Thanos? What if I mean someone whom you happen agree did nothing wrong? What if it is just a shirt I got from a thrift store and it has no known meaning to me at all? You see why that is stupid as fuck?

Andy and Randy from Sex Drive?

The right against self incriminating is the 5th amendment. And he’s being charged for destroying evidence, not for not providing it. But I love the spirit.

I’m saying that the Pinocchio nose thing is clearly based on his lying, i.e. on stating something he knows/believes to be false, not an objective truth. It is the theme of the story.

And all too commonly, Christian (and other) fundamentalists extend beyond mere faith into delusion where they lose track of what is their personal belief and what is ubiquitous accepted reality. Sometimes to the point that that they actually cannot accept that others simply don’t believe in their deity. They genuinely think that their deity not only definitely exists, but such a fact is unquestionably apparent on the face of it to everyone and competely beyond reproach. So when one claims to be an atheist, or hold another faith, the only conclusion that they can come to is that you actually do know their deity exists and so your denial of them is either out of evil, misplaced anger, brainwashing (by evil men or the devil or something similar) or you are a grifter with some other agenda. Whatever it is, it most certainly can’t be a sound, justified, reasonable lack of belief in their god. That’s nonsense.

Again, that’s not all of them, but any means. But it’s not uncommon either.

Agreed about PHM. Disagree about The Martian. The movie was decent. The book was far better.

Christian thinks that belief = truth. News at 11.

Fuck. Off. Already.

Ba dum tss

I believe you’re right. My mistake. I misremembered that factoid.

You mean probable cause, not “probably cause”. And what you described, evading a sobriety checkpoint, gives them reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion amounts to articulable facts of observation that reasonably lead them to suspect you may be committing/have committed/were about to commit a crime (like apparently fleeing from a police breathalyzer check). It grants them the power to detain you for a reasonable time for the purposes of investigating to confirm or assuage their suspicion.

Probable cause requires actual evidence that a specific crime has been committed, that you committed it, and that evidence is secured. It is the standard needed to A) arrest you or issue a warrant for your arrest, and B) issue a search warrant for your property if evidence connects it to the crime in question in order to gather more evidence. (Note: They may do an inventory search of your person if arrested, and an inventory search of your vehicle if towed due to your arrest. This is limited in scope. A full search requires a warrant.)

Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard than probable cause.

They’d only be doing it when they have a big suspicion of something, at least you’d hope.

Nope. They often do it entirely randomly. I’ve seen videos of them pulling over multiple vehicles to be searched simultaneously at a crossing before.

Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity. However, stops and searches conducted in areas farther from the border may require at least heightened suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity to withstand Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-6-3/ALDE_00000239/

They can do warrantless searches. Just not within the entire 100 mile border. A fair distinction, but they definitely can at the border and ports of entry, and do so routinely.

The 100 miles extends inward from the exterior border, not around every airport. But every international airport is a port of entry over which they have jurisdiction and can perform warrantless searches. And, in my opinion, warrantless searches for everyone by virtue of simply entering into the country is a violation of the 4th amendment. Which is why it’s bullshit and shouldn’t be allowed. It can and often is abused, especially when tied to another equally (should be) unconstitutional “law”, civil forfeiture, even before the bullshit policies Trump and the SCOTUS have deemed reasonable suspicion for illegal status (i.e. appearing Hispanic, speaking Spanish, displaying a flag from another nation, etc.) I’m aware of the laws, but that doesn’t make them just or even constitutional.

“At a crossing” means with 100 miles of any border or port of entry. Which is about 67% of the country. It is complete bullshit of a policy.

Agreed. Also consider the duration of the time that the portal is passing over the cube. It is moving at speed, the entire way through the portal and out the other side and then it just stops dead immediately once through? That would hardly be a conservation of momentum anyway from any frame of reference and does not make any intuitive sense.

Also, not even a part of that act, but just buy virtue of an executive order, all states must register all gun owners and share that registry to a central federal body who will use knowingly outdated and massively incorrect data (and probably politically motivated bullshit as well) to automatically remove people from the registration without notification and make exercising gun ownership a felony if you’re not on that registry. And any state that doesn’t submit to this will have all of their citizen’s ability to use federal services curtailed, and likely more punishments later like restricting federal dollars they are owed.

Heat and steam can also be a factor in a water breach. A phone that can be fully submerged into a pool of water may or may not stand up well to steam at its seams, particularly where those seams have different materials with different expansion rates due to heat, like glass and aluminum. Small gaps may open, even if invisible to the eye, and steam can seap in. It may not even be a problem immediately but get worse later when the steam cools and condensates.

The stage is finally late enough that the cracks are apparent to even Republicans huh? Took long enough.

The other day I had Claude write some code that failed a unit test. It was failing at a step that ran assertEquals(actualMap, expectedMap);. The reason it was failing was because one of the values in the map, a UUID, is automatically generated in the code. In the test, it has been hard coded.

Anyone with any sense would know you need to handle that misalignment. Omit that field from the match assertion? Set that UUID based on the generated value instead of hardcoding it? Anything like that would work just fine.

But Claud’s solution was to change that assertion to assertTrue("The actualMap and expectedMap will never be equal because the values of ID will never match");. So the test always passes and it explicitly notes that they will not match. I would have fired a Junior Dev on the spot for writing that solution.

He fails to mention that he has AI also generate and do all of those tests, which means, A) he has no quality supervision over his quality supervision. Speaking from experience, AI can and will break a test in order to pass it rather than fixing the code if it randomly decides to. It is not always reliable and does not have even the baseline of good sense you would expect a brand new junior dev to have. And B) he’s probably spending 3 times as much on tokens used for generating and running tests than he is already using on code generation. That’s only going to be sustainable while these tokens remain cheap, which won’t be for much longer, my guy.

Also it is always fun when someone asks you basic questions about your code and you have to admit complete and total ignorance because you neither wrote nor read a single line of it. How are you going to sell confidence in your black box that even you haven’t peeked inside?