If you need an ID to vote, all I need to do to keep you from voting is to steal your ID.

Think your wife might vote blue? “Accidentally” take her purse in your car. Think your teenager might buy in to that new “woke” fashion? Their ID gets locked up “to keep it from being lost”.

Them too, but that’s really is a distinction without a difference. Thank you for pushing back on eurocentrism.

(I mean, unless you’re claiming Germany [and Italy] started the war in Europe in direct respone to their ally’s invasion?)

My preference is to treat everyone as people, and hold them responsible for their own actions or inactions instead of shifting the blame to somebody else.

Sorry for the late reply.

Again, do you have any actual evidence that SHA-256 repositories in version 3.0 won’t be able to reference SHA-1 repositories as submodules?

Based on the design doc it looks like git will include both hashes during the transition, specifically to allow two-way communication with SHA-1 remotes. You may not be able to include a random stranger’s SHA-1 submodule via a shallow clone, but just doing a full clone sure as heck looks like a supported usage.

https://git-scm.com/docs/hash-function-transition

That’s all fine and good, but singling out liberals this way rhetorically absolves the actual fascists

Chamberlain was absolutely to blame for his weak actions , and the German libs were accountable for theirs, but so were the Nazis.

Purity testing and leftist infighting is the geo-political equivalent of blaming a girl’s outfit for her rape, instead of the rapists. It’s like going to a man who was stabbed and mocking his cowardly friend instead of providing first aid or chasing off his attacker.

Don’t do the zionist work for them by limiting your criticism to just the rational people who should have stopped this.

WW2 was started by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, not Neville Chamberlain.

The bit about “comparability”. Where do you see that they will? (I mean, aside from the original article that claimed it without evidence.)

A submodule is “just” a pointer to a specific commit in an external repo. It was at one point entirely done via shell scripts, and unless I missed an update is still obnoxiously slow compared to the rest of git.

I can’t fathom why the SHA-256 support for submodules would do more than just treat the SHA as a foreign key.and go from there. We’d potentially be in trouble if SHA-1 support is being removed, but I don’t see any reason why git would do something so stupid.

(I honestly can’t fathom why SHA-256 hashed commits couldn’t be the children of SHA-1 commits. A bunch of reasons why you may not WANT to, but that’s a separate concern that seems like it’d be outweighed by comparability.)

Further reading that casts doubt on even submodules breaking:

https://www.deployhq.com/blog/git-3-0-on-the-horizon-what-git-users-need-to-know-about-the-next-major-release

It sounds like the new default is specifically to push GitHub et al to support SHA-256. Which they either will, or they will fork git and continue on with SHA-1 forever.

I read that whole article, and aside from an unsourced statement that GitHub et al will need “new and distinct servers” exactly zero of that seemed to support the thesis that a SHA-256 default was going to be “expensive”.

Submodules are not the preferred way to incorporate third-party code for any environment I know. And while web-exposed URLs for management tools like Jira or AzureDevOps will need to adapt before the new default can be used, doing so even with a wholesale re-hashing of every commit isn’t technically difficult.

What would be terrible and dangerous would be if git 3.0 entirely dropped SHA-1 support. But just as you’re free to keep on using “master” instead of “main”, i expect that extant projects will still be supported until a version after every major project has converted to SHA-256 or what have you.

This is 10,000% the right call.

The ability to generate a photorealistic video of a person is an impressive technical feat, but it doesn’t change the legal weight of said video. As far as a court of law is concerned, it may as well have been a videotaped skit or narration over cartoon drawings.

(And sometimes said skit or drawings is relevant and admissable! Testimony is testimony and evidence is evidence! )

No means “No”, not “stop asking”. “Stop asking” means “stop asking”. “We’re not having sex tonight”, “i don’t fuck on a first date”, and others say “don’t even ask”, but a mere “no” doesn’t. And even asking after they say “stop asking” is itself consent respecting, because its literally a request for consent.

Consent is the single and all-important bright line, and globbing behaviors that are merely rude or ignoble with actual coercisve.activity like “control the environment” or “express anger” is not accurate or helpful.

“Sexual force” and “young men” need some fairly large qualifications here.

• the most.common “sexual force” was some variant of “sell yourself” or “ask again”. No distinction was.made in the absract betwreen consent-respecting and consent-disregarding strategies, with all merely grouped as “sexual force”

• The study is on college student aged men, who responded to an ask to 'tell men’s side of the story", reported a hook-up in the past two years, and either didnt clock the thin rewording of “tell me how you raped her” or continued regardless for the $10.

This is absolutely a worthwhile study and should be repeated and refined, but its not at all as described in that headline. If you want to distill it.down to a single sound bite, *65% of men claim they never employed rapey strategies" is more accurate.

(I mean, unless you consider…“ask a woman to help you connect with a date” or “sell yourself as a good hookup” rapey…)

These warnings DO serve a purpose, even when they are legally void. People tend to follow less closely behind trucks, secure their belongings when parking, and take other actions to avoid the clearly indicated potential loss.

If a load breaks and cracks your windshield the truck is likely liable, but depending on how close you were following you may share some liability as well – especially if you, say, collide with the truck or another car after your windshield breaks. The law may hold that the sign has no effect, but itll be hard to convince a jury that you didnt know the truck was a potential hazard after you say that you saw it.

To be as deferential as possible: because sexual assault charges are hard enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when the women was caught on camera shouting “help, I’m being raped!”

To phrase it as every politician who challenges the local DA for the rest of his career: because Matthew Van Houten (D,WF) is a sexist asshole who didn’t do his fucking job and investigate a crime.

To phrase it as the local Democratic and Working Families parties will when challenged: because the county is dominated by that elitist ivy league school and the corrupt rich treat embarrassment worse than they do rape.

We already have a system subject to impersonation attacks and simple fraud. Major retailers and fiscal institutions both spend a considerable amount of time tracking fraud, and often catch it so easily that they need to wait until it accumulates to a point where it’s worth reporting.

And, even if we were suddenly inundated with a level of fraud attempts sufficient to overwhelm the system, there is literally an entirely separate model of online finance that was designed to be zero trust.

And if “how existing banking” and “cryptocurrency” don’t convince you we won’t be reverting to cash, please realize that an AI ubiquitous to overwhelm global finance is also so ubiquitous that we might as well do what humans always actually do when commerce breaks down, and revert.to a gift economy.

Dorks recommending that other dorks who couldn’t even figure out Word should instead use a gui wrapper around an overcomplicated text-based markup format are a special kind of something.

That said, I havent even looked at LaTeX in over twenty years so maybe it has had dramatic improvements since the invention of markdown…

There is no over-reaction to actual censorship.

Sudden abscorbic rejection is the tolerant reaction to facist sea-lioning.

There are a handful of other issues where a similarly strong rejection is appropriate, such as “surely a little rape is OK” or “why can’t a grandfather fuck a 12 year old”.

It may seem extreme to respond with such vitriol just to a political choice, until you remember that the politocian in question is a rapist and a pedophile.

I know there was a pre-Brexit referendum that failed in part because Scotland didn’t want to leave the EU. Waa there another one?

breaking the encryption is hard , but getting around the encryption is entirely doable without physical access if you allow SMS or on-device sharing.