I always liked lxc for containers. I never understood Docker. Not that I really put a lot of time into trying. These days I don't use either one.

Of course it would. Most jurors have probably received more than one "We take security seriously" letter and free credit monitoring because they were included in a data breach. Relating to their own experience and getting them to think "that could be me" about the defendant would be very valuable. Creating reasonable doubt is the primary job of a criminal defense attorney, as that obligates the jury to a not guilty finding.

The credit agencies have also leaked all their info many times. You don't even need a credit report if you're already dealing with leaked PII.

All of the associated information tied to your SSN has also been leaked multiple times. Just having it should not be considered any kind of "proof" of identity in 2026. This should be an easy argument for "reasonable doubt" by any defense attorney.

While possibly true in theory, in practice it's not. Courts and judges do not take kindly to frivolous or unsubstantiated claims, and any halfway good attorney would advise you to not waste your money and your time on a claim you are unlikely to win or be able to collect on.

People and companies do get sued with the full intention of a settlement and it never going to trial. But that only happens when the defendant has deep pockets or good insurance.

Good teachable moment for you and your kids?

Are you suggesting that pharmacies should only fill prescriptions and not sell any OTC medications, cosmetics, or other convenience products?

OTC medications can be handy, maybe convenience items are okay. It's sure convenient to be able to buy cigarettes and lotto tickets at the same store as your diabetes supplies etc. I guess the contradiction in health/vice items strokes my sense of decency the wrong way. Know your limit, play within it! As the slogan says...

Yes, same in the US. States like to lecture us on gambling when they are the biggest operators out there.

States operate gambling so that there is no profit motive in running it. That's the theory for it anyway.

If they actually operated in a disinterested way, sure, but how many different forms of advertising do you see the lotto being promoted in? Doesn't seem disinterested to me.

What? States make buckets of money from gambling. They typically claimed it was "for education" but money is fungible and our other taxes never went down, so anything it offsets in one budget just leaves more money for other budgets.

The real reason they can do it is they (the state) have a monopoly on violence and you don't.

Read my second sentence again.

I read your second sentence but I don't get it. Isn't generating profit for the state literally the entire point of the lottery? Who is arguing that it doesn't do that in theory or practice?

Profit motive implies profit maximization behavior or mandates. A state-run lottery should not have that. Again, in theory.

Sounds like the plot of a James Bond story.

Same thing would happen. There'd be signs on every street light pole "Sell your AI shares. CASH PAID TODAY!!"