Buddahriffic

If she had been male, it would have been about ass kissing rather than dick sucking.

This isn't a "haha women can only success if they use their bodies" so much as a "haha she miscalculated that using her body would give her a close position to Trump but he moved on pretty quickly and prefers Elon's money".

Personally, I like the first one and wouldn't use an option to automatically give those permissions to all apps.

Being a power user doesn't make anyone immune from malware, it just needs to pass some sniff tests. It was by luck that that backdoor in the Linux kernel was found and it's naive to believe every single malware app is going to be obvious with unrealistic promises and/or bad grammar and spelling. Permissions requests are a clue that an app is doing something it shouldn't be. And Facebook is considered trusted by many despite an insider even confirming the "talk about something near your phone and fb will advertise it to you" being real.

When you download an app, unless you either wrote it yourself (including all libraries) or have checked the source for open source apps (again including libraries), you can only guess at what it is really doing. And just because an app does what it claims to do doesn't mean it isn't doing anything else, so the "well, it does work" test isn't a great security test.

For the app developers being able to block side loading, it says it uses meta data to enforce that. Couldn't modders just modify that meta data so that it doesn't realize X' app is actually a modified X app? It would need to do something more complex than a checksum or hash to detect it's the same app.

I mean, I love "fuck Google" bandwagons, but either I'm missing something or this one doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

The saw movies are basically gore/torture (both physical and psychological) porn.

Does this law allow for any standards progression or is it USB-c forever?

I wouldn't call it overclocking so much as changing the way you think, and making it easier to separate thought from emotion. Or at least that was an observation I made about what was different. I could think about things that were normally very emotionally charged without those same emotions getting in the way, kinda like being able to skip the stages of grief when thinking about things many people are in denial about without even thinking about it.

I also believe that it reduces the barrier between the conscious and subconscious, allowing more things the subconscious "figured out" to bubble up to conscious thought. "Figured out" in quotes because while the subconscious is powerful, it is not infallible. There might also be a sense of connection between the "a-ha!" feeling of figuring out something profound and random thoughts going through your conscious mind, making normal or dumb shit seem important and groundbreaking in the moment.

End comes after 10 minutes of video with nothing happening. And when something does happen, it's half out of frame and completely underwhelming.

Woks don't have buttons! How the hell do you expect to deep fry things without any buttons!? I've seen into the back of a McDonald's before, their deep fryers have buttons and beep and shit. If a wok ever beeped at me, I wouldn't think "oh, fries are done," I'd think, "am I going insane?"

Unless you're using one as a helmet, in which case it's more of a ding than a beep, but it means it just saved your life and you should tip your blacksmith. You should also probably clean the wok before you use it to sear something and set it aside or bake cookies or anything, though.

Yeah only question for me right now is if it will go to 0 or 2 before going back to 1.

How many world wars were fought in the last century? The answer might surprise you!

They don't think the free market solves everything. They think a weaker government is easier to control and that struggling government workers are easier to buy.

Tangent topic, but how does an anarchist system prevent popular leaders from gaining authority? Also, how does it defend against an aggressive authoritarian neighbour that wants to annex territory?

I like the idea of anarchism in theory, but I just don't see how it could be possible to get there from here where every existing power would see it as an ideological threat to their own power (similar to how capitalist powers reacted to communism), or how it would maintain stability if it was realized.

And as much as I don't like the monopoly on violence system because it seems to encourage corruption on the side with more access to violence, I can't help but think it would eventually devolve into a lot of in-fighting.

Like power constantly rises from nothing more than physical strength, charisma, or good strategic thinking in groups of humans. Some primates other than humans go to war with their neighbouring groups. Egypt became a kingdom when one tribe conquered the rest, and that one wasn't the first to try. Countless empires have risen and fallen, most of the time despite violent resistance of those who would rather be neighbours than subjects. The Vikings sailed around raiding for their own benefit and then later conquered regions like in France, Britain, Sicily, and Kiev. The Mongols did the same except using horses instead of boats. Then European powers did it. Then America started pretty much puppeting anyone who went against corporate interests while a cultural movement in Russia and China started out trying to move power out of the hands of their ruling class only to see even more authoritarian powers take over.

History is full of cases of "I don't care what you want, this is what I want and I'll just kill you if you don't go along with it." How could that change?

There's no formal rule, but adjectives can function as verbs in day to day English. can mean the same thing as make .