ilmagico

Ok first of all: GrapheneOS is great, probably the best alternative Android OS, but their PR skills are rock bottom. Still, many ignore that due to how good it is.

With that said, I don't believe their claim that it's impossible for them to target a user with a malicious OTA: their reason is basically that the update server never even knows who is downloading, and so it can't send a different file to just one user. That's true, but thet could, in theory, make a single OTA that everybody gets, but checks for a specific IMEI or other device ID and only there enables some malicious payload.

I trust them not to do it, for many reasons, but technically they could. I also don't think they'd do it to Louis, despite the beef they have with him.

Sure, but the problem is the ecosystem of alternatives stores effectively collapsing or falling under Google's control. That will affect everybody who uses them, whether on GrapheneOS, LineageOS or certified devices.

With Newsom's signature, now it's up to the voters to decide whether to temporarily sidestep the state's independent redistricting commission

How temporary is "temporary"? I can't find it in the article

As many people here are saying, you don't owe them anything and shouldn't be ineligible for rehire for giving them the stardard 2 weeks notice, but if you care about your coworker and your manager on a personal level, e.g. because they are good people, maybe even friends, then sure, go ahead and offer to be accomodating, within reason. Being kind, while not required, is likely appreciated, but do it cause you care about them, not about your rehire eligibility (which, once again, shouldn't be an issue here).

Well, clearly as others said, it's the economy of scale: making large quantities of the same thing is cheaper than making small runs or one offs, and spare parts don't sell as much, if an item is designed well (i.e. doesn't break immediately).

But, I want to add something important IMHO: buying new because is cheaper isn't really the problem, the problem is the waste it generates, and when we throw away (or hoard...) something, neither we nor the company that made the item pays for the cost of disposal. In fact, in many cases, the cost will be paid by society as a whole, sometimes by future generations. This is why it appears cheaper to buy new, but really, there's a hidden cost that individuals and companies don't directly pay.

If we could, somehow, make a company pay for the disposal of all the waste their products create, I tell you, repairing would be a lot more common.

So, China made their own copycat RoboCup competition?

And I fully agree with your statement, but the article is also going out and calling things false when in reality we simply have no evidence for them (see the last quote in my comment above).

But when Alito referenced a systematic review conducted for the Cass report in England, Strangio conceded the point. “There is no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide,” he said. “And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare, and we’re talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don’t necessarily have completed suicides within them.”

And then

Advocates of the open-science movement often talk about “zombie facts”—popular sound bites that persist in public debate, even when they have been repeatedly discredited. Many common political claims made in defense of puberty blockers and hormones for gender-dysphoric minors meet this definition

Ok, I get the idea that there might be no scientific evidence for gender affirming care reducing suicide rate, but "no evidence" is not the same as "discredited": it might still be true, and in fact, anectodal evidence probably suggest it's true, but we don't have enough data to confirm that.

The conclusion should be "we need more data" rather than taking about zombie facts.

And the article continue to conflate "no evidence" with falsehood:

But the movement has spent the past decade telling gender-nonconforming children that anyone who tries to restrict access to puberty blockers and hormones is, effectively, trying to kill them. This was false, as Strangio’s answer tacitly conceded.

No, it's not false, or at least, we can't conclude that from not enough evidence.

Not disagreeing, especially as of lately...

They're using what little leverage they have, and for once, without bombing or killing people. Surprisingly rational. Still a shitty regime, especially the way they treat their own citizens, but anyways...

It's mostly true, but not true often enough that makes it worth to buy cheap (and possibly twice), hoping for the lucky inexpensive quality item, then to buy nice, hoping you won't have to buy it twice anyway cause it was just overpriced.

Also agree on what others suggested: buy cheap first, then if it breaks, buy quality.

You're entering a world of pain