If you're someone who offsets the typical HN vocation with outdoor recreation like hiking, cycling, climbing, mountaineering, etc., then consider the weeklong Wilderness First Responder (WFR) course. Much more practically useful than EMT for the majority of time where you don't have an ambulance handy, and you can scratch a similar itch as the author's by doing volunteer Search and Rescue work.
It's the personal blog for a well-known Rubyist (i.e., a person who programs in the Ruby programming language). Rubyists teld to be a bit more colorful than your typical software developer (in a good way... most of the time).
Don't worry! It's actually "Tenderlove Making," going by how the site header is constructed. Definitely a maker/hacker site, and not whatever you were thinking. Hope this allays your concern.
… a feature which, at least for me, is rendered almost entirely useless by massive cookie banners that always cover the entire field of view of the hover. But, surprisingly, not in this specific case.
Presumably the browser still has to fetch the page in that case, right? From a "surveilled net traffic" perspective, how is that different than clicking the link?
In my opinion, yes, that makes you a radical. I don’t want an armed organization with a trillion dollar budget stalking me. That’s the common stance in America. We even put it in our constitution.
A frequent argument made in Flock's favor is that if you are in public there isn't an expectation of privacy. That Flock can see where you go just like any other driver. Particularly since Flock is a private entity not the government. This is the Other Driver behaving antisocially towards one driver EXACTLY as Flock does to all drivers.
I agree that that is not a good argument. I am perfectly fine with the government having access to things, for instance taxation or armed enforcers + bodycams, that are illegal for the youtuber.
Well, the government can use Flock camera footage, and YouTubers can film with personal devices on public property. So I guess their capabilities are already pretty different
The government represents the public will of the people and has democratic legitimacy. The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will.
Due to the monopoly on violence, governments need additional more constraints in some areas. If your government dislikes you and they can track every step you take out in public, it becomes much easier for them to violate your rights without anyone stopping them. And because the government could fetch the same data from any company collecting it, companies too must be banned from doing so.
>The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd.
That is precisely the notion of the US constitution. If some random person chose to take down a flier criticizing the president, that is fair game (legally, or at least it defers to private policy). If a government agent did that, it verges on breaking the first amendment because we know that is a form of government suppression of speech. The first 10 amendments to the constitution pretty much all work to some extent of this logic.
> I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will.
Those are all pretty much state laws outside of taxation, not part of the Constitution. We could setup campaigns to restrict those powers anytime we want to, or to grant them to private citizens in some cases.
Speech and surveillance fall under the constitution. Restricting/granting such power requires a much higher standard of process.
It's an evolutionary curiosity that their DNA study identified 17 species within the genus Lanmoa, but L. asiatica was the only species which produces this hallucinatory effect.
There are several very commonly found boletes within the genus Lanmoa in the US, including L. pseudosensibilis and the "Bouillon Bolete" L. rubissima.
I purchased a bottle of good Vietnamese fish sauce after reading a thread on HN about its mythical flavor profile.
Added a few meager drops to a noodle soup, and I was so overwhelmed with nausea that I threw out the entire pot, and threw the entire bottle of fish sauce into the trash.
I can't imagine want an unholy stench this decades-old fish sauce plant must produce. I would have evacuated permanently, without question.
That was only one of the differences mentioned; the others were on the cartridge itself and included a different sticker on the back and different manufacturing codes.
