there are good stories and bad stories uh good stories I mean this is very on a very very simplistic level but good stories 00:13:23 benefit people and bad stories can create you know Wars and genocides and and the most terrible crimes in history were committed in the name of some fictional story people believed very few 00:13:38 Wars in history are about objective material things people think that we fight like wolves or chimpanzees over food and territory this is not the case 00:13:52 at least not in the modern world if I look for instance at my country which is at present in at War the Israeli Palestinian conflict is not really about food and territory there is enough food 00:14:04 between the Jordan and Mediterranean to feed everybody there is enough territory to build houses and schools for everybody but you have two conflicting stories or more than two conflicting 00:14:17 stories in the minds of different people and they can't agree on the story they can't find a common story that everybody would be happy with and this is the the Deep source of the conflict

Too new to comment on the specific answer

Mitch McConnell, who was accused of laying waste to bipartisan co-operation in the Senate when he blocked a supreme court pick by Barack Obama then changed the rules to hurry through three picks for Donald Trump, has said that if Democrats do away with the filibuster, they will “turn the Senate into a sort of nuclear winter”.

You can write the query in this good old way to avoid error

Also there is always an option to use SQL: @items .joins(:orders) .where("orders.user_id = ? OR items.available = true", current_user.id)

but if .or() throws an error then I'm back to the bad old days of using to_sql

Besides running contrary to the principles that lead a lot of people to Linux systems (a closed store that you can't alter...automatic updates you have no control over....run by just the one company)

Svelte will not offer a generic way to support style customizing via contextual class overrides (as we'd do it in plain HTML). Instead we'll invent something new that is entirely different. If a child component is provided and does not anticipate some contextual usage scenario (style wise) you'd need to copy it or hack around that via :global hacks.

The problem with working around the current limitations of Svelte style (:global, svelte:head, external styles or various wild card selectors) is that the API is uglier, bigger, harder to explain AND it loses one of the best features of Svelte IMO - contextual style encapsulation. I can understand that CSS classes are a bit uncontrollable, but this type of blocking will just push developers to work around it and create worse solutions.

Even without going to that extreme, the constraint of having a single <style> can easily force component authors to resort to the kinds of classes-as-namespaces hacks that scoped styles are supposed to obviate.

Bad people will always be motivated to go the extra mile to do bad things.

Meanwhile, criminals would just continue to use widely available (but less convenient) software to jump through hoops and keep having encrypted conversations.

The administration and its allies fear that the more people gravitate toward the successful, free-market self-insurance approach, the worse their government-engineered health “reform” will look. We’re already seeing the beginning of this trend.

This is it. I'm done with Page Translator, but you don't have to be. Fork the repo. Distribute the code yourself. This is now a cat-and-mouse game with Mozilla. Users will have to jump from one extension to another until language translation is a standard feature or the extension policy changes.

Mozilla will never publicly ask users to circumvent their own blocklist. But it's their actions that are forcing people to do so.

So to me, it seems like they want to keep their users safer by... making them use Google Chrome or... exposing themselves to even greater danger by disabling the whole blocklist.

Suddenly even linking to data was an excuse to get raided by the FBI and potentially face serious charges. Even more concerning is that Brown linked to data that was already public and others had already linked to.

Having said all that, I think this is completely absurd that I have to write an entire article justifying the release of this data out of fear of prosecution or legal harassment. I had wanted to write an article about the data itself but I will have to do that later because I had to write this lame thing trying to convince the FBI not to raid me.

I could have released this data anonymously like everyone else does but why should I have to? I clearly have no criminal intent here. It is beyond all reason that any researcher, student, or journalist have to be afraid of law enforcement agencies that are supposed to be protecting us instead of trying to find ways to use the laws against us.

The key change here is the removal of an intent to defraud and replacing it with willfully; it will be illegal to share this information as long as you have any reason to know someone else might use it for unauthorized computer access.It is troublesome to consider the unintended consequences resulting from this small change.

The problem is that it is that the laws themselves change the very definition of a criminal and put many innocent professionals at risk.