A quick "rule" is to see how old the word/concept is. "plaintiff" would have existed almost as long as the English legal system came into being, or probably even older to the court of Assizes pre-12th century.
Whereas firefighter as a profession might have only become a word after the establishment of fire departments by insurance companies, which I think might have been a 19th century development.
0% interest offers show up fairly frequently in the USA, often as general-purpose credit cards, or for car or furniture payments, in addition to the many buy-now-pay-later services that allow financing almost anything. However, the motives for offering 0% are slightly different for each of these products.
But answering the question directly, a 0% offer is beneficial if you were already going to make the purchase and would finance it. Cheap credit makes it easy to overspend, since the payments will be "tomorrow's problem". For people who can afford to pay for something in full, it might still be beneficial to finance with 0% just to conserve cash on hand. But the tradeoff is having to service the debt with regular payments; missing one payment can cause the debt to resume at an exorbitant rate. It takes a decent amount of financial discipline to make a 0% offer work in your favor.
Going back to why 0% offers even exist, I'll use furniture and cars as they're the historic examples. Furniture is expensive, whether it's a sectional sofa or a queen-size bed with frame and storage. There's also a sizable markup for furniture, and competition between furniture stores is strong. Thus, to help entice people to buy furniture, sellers will offer 0%, outsourced to a loan company, with the loan subsidized by some of the profit margins.
For cars, the equation is slightly different. Sure, cars are an order of magnitude more expensive, but that also means the opportunity cost for dealers to offer 0% is correspondingly larger. Instead, 0% financing for cars is almost always subsidized by the manufacturer, not the dealers. This is a financial and business strategy that allows a car company to create more sales in a given quarter, if perhaps they need to meet certain year-end targets but are reluctant to reduce their list prices.
0% car loans induce more sales fairly quickly, but will draw on the company coffers in the years to come, because the loan company still wants their cut to be paid by someone. Consumers will usually benefit from these offers, as it's rare for people to buy a new car outright.
It's my opinion that if a car company has to subsidize loans to move their product, that's a tacit admission that their product is wrongly priced or the competition is better. I would take this into consideration, although it wouldn't necessarily carry the day when considering a purchase. After all, car payment interest is not insignificant.
Absolutely, it is essential to always run the numbers. I was once offered a sizable rebate if I accepted a non-0% car loan, but no rebate if I paid cash or had my own financing. Since their loan had no early-repayment penalty -- and I demanded this in writing -- I accepted their loan and paid it off upon the first statement.
My suspicion is that that sort of offer was to boost the commissions earned by the loan brokers, rather than to move cars. Or maybe both. Who knows.
For other people's benefit beyond my own:
RIIR: "Rewrite It In Rust"
I'm not a Rust developer (yet), but I understand its strength in this regard as: Rust is statically memory safe by default, and code which isn't statically memory safe must be declared with the unsafe keyword. Whereas C++ has not deprecated C-style pointers, and so a C engineer can easily write unsafe C code that's valid in a C++ compiler, and no declaration of its unsafeness is readily apparent to trigger an audit.
It's nice and all that C++ pioneered a fair number of memory safety techniques like SBRM, but the debate now is about safety by default, not optional bolt-on safety. All agree that the overall process to achieve correct code is paramount, not just the language constructs.
"tete a tete chair" turned up a lot of very relevant pictures on Google Images. I'm poised to think you've comprehensively answered the main question!
I'll have to do more digging to see if modern versions of these chairs exist and if any were featured on TV or film, but at least I know have a workable keyword. Thanks!
The other answers have touched upon the relative efficiencies between a phone charger and a desktop computer's PSU. But I want to also mention that the comparison may be apples-to-oranges if we're considering modern smartphones that are capable of USB Power Delivery (USB PD).
Without any version of USB PD -- or its competitors like Quick Charge -- the original USB specification only guaranteed 5 V and up to 500 mA. That's 2.5 W, which was enough for USB keyboards and mice, but is pretty awful to charge a phone with. But even an early 2000s motherboard would provide this amount, required by the spec.
The USB Battery Charging (USB BC) spec brought the limit up to 1500 mA, but that's still only 7.5 W. And even in 2024, there are still (exceedingly) cheap battery banks that don't even support USB BC rates. Motherboards are also a mixed bag, unless they specifically say what they support.
So if you're comparing, for example, the included phone charger with a Samsung S20 (last smartphone era that shipped a charger with the phone) is capable of 25 W charging, and so is the phone. Unless you bought the S20 Ultra, which has the same charger but the phone can support 45 W charging.
Charging the S20 Ultra on a 2004-era computer will definitely be slower than the stock charger. But charging with a 2024-era phone charger would be faster than the included charger. And then your latest-gen laptop might support 60 W charging, but because the phone maxes out at 45 W, it makes no difference.
You might think that faster and faster charging should always be less and less efficient, but it's more complex since all charging beyond ~15 Watts will use higher voltages on the USB cable. This is allowable because even the thinnest wire insulation in a USB cable can still tolerate 9 volts or even 20 volts just fine. Higher voltage reduces current, which reduces resistive losses.
The gist is: charging is a patchwork of compatibility, so blanket statements on efficiency are few and far between.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm willing to have some fun with this idea.
A cursory review of the relevant California Government Code section 420 -- blaze it! -- provides a description of the California state flag, and also a picture of it. Or it would in the print version of the code. While there doesn't appear to be a specific bit of law which authorizes the state to retain the copyright on the flag, there is case law which disallows the state from retaining copyright for "government documents", with exceptions which wouldn't apply here. So it's reasonable to assume that California doesn't have the copyright on its state flag, with it likely being in the public domain.
This would suggest that Minnesota could indeed use the flag to mean something else, the same way anyone can with public domain material. Now, if this occurs outside of California, that state could not enforce any sort of rules pertaining to how the flag is used. Even within the state, California's authority to control how public domain material -- or more broadly, any material at all -- is circumscribed by the First Amendment in any case. The exception would be for those agencies and subdivisions of the state itself, which it can and does control. See Gov Code section 435, which disallows cities from having confusingly similar flags. The other exception would be uses of the flag which perpetuate fraud or some other related crime, since then it's not the speech being punished but the conduct, which happens to involve a flag-related expression. But neither of these really speak to the flag being used by another sovereign entity within the state.
Supposing for a second -- and this is where we're really departing from reality -- the several states had embassies at each other's state capitals, but without the equivalent protections afforded by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relationships. And by that, I mean each state buys land in other states, without creating sovereignty issues, owning that land as any other individual or corporation could. In such a case, if the Minnesota Embassy in Sacramento were to fly the flag of California as its own, what could California do? If they drafted a law like section 435 that applies to individuals, the First Amendment would present a barrier. If the law applies to out-of-state entities, it might run against the Dormant Commerce Clause, in a very broad interpretation of interstate commerce. If they apply it to all sovereign entities operating within the state -- which would include the Minnesota Embassy, since the State of Minnesota owns it -- then the thorny question of state sovereign immunity in state court would arise.
In a California state court, would the State of Minnesota have sovereign immunity? If instead of Minnesota, it were a foreign country like Scotland, the answer would be a resounding yes. But here is a state vs state issue. The proper venue would be a court with original jurisdiction over states, and there's only one of those: the US Supreme Court.
As to what the state of California would assert as a cause of action? I suppose they could raise a criminal violation of their freshly-drafted law, with the risk of devolving into whether a US State has its own rights of free speech, which other states must respect. Alternatively, they could raise an action in equity, such as a tort (MN's use of the flag is costing CA somehow) or defamation (MN's use of the flag asserts falsehoods about CA).
At this point, we're deep into legal fanfiction and it's time to stop haha. Needless to say, I think the situation in real life would be messy if it were to happen.
For other people's benefit and my own:
PWA: Progressive Web App
and is a give away to AI generated images
Username: MyPornViewingAccount
Everything checks out.
Most commercial publications in the USA and UK -- UPC/ISBN or not, regular or not -- will often send copies of their work to the national library (ie Library of Congress). That said, those copies might not be prioritized for digital viewing. So seeing them in-person might be the only way to access them.
As for whether the publishing houses keep them, it's probably very individualized, so who can say.
In a nutshell, the TPM works great as a trust anchor if it's only needed once during boot-up. But anti-cheat and DRM software run concurrently with the software payload, so it's not a one-time deal but a continual process to reverify. More so, the TPM is not self-enforcing so there would have to be software which issues a challenge to the TPM, and then interprets the response. This uses CPU power, at a minimum.
The crucial challenge -- likely unsolvable in the general case -- is that anti-cheat software has to try to monopolize some portion of the machine, to prevent running other software like hacks or keygens. But this is diametrically opposed to the goal for the past 60 years of multitasking operating systems and context-switching CPUs, which try to divy out the machine so different software appear to run almost simultaneously and independently.
As a result, some anti-cheat software is truly horrible, because they have to employ very strange tricks to coerce the system to either prevent something undesirable from happening, or to act as a canary when something undesirable has happened. The definition of "undesirable" is left to the software package makers to define.
The only plausible way I could see the situation improving is if OS makers integrated anti-cheat and DRM into the scheduler (the very core of an OS) in a uniform manner. But this is: 1) really complicated, and 2) a security nightmare if malware could exploit it. And that's ignoring whether the Unix/Linux/BSD world would ever tolerate such a kernel feature.
There was a ton of hairbrained theories floating around, but nobody had any definitive explanation.
Well I was new to the company and fresh out of college, so I was tasked with figuring this one out.
This checks out lol
Knowing very little about USB audio processing, but having cut my teeth in college on 8-bit 8051 processors, I knew what kind of functions tended to be slow.
I often wonder if this deep level understanding of embedded software/firmware design is still the norm in university instruction. My suspicion has been that focus moved to making use of ever-increasing SoC performance and capabilities, in the pursuit of making it Just Work(tm) but also proving Wirth's Law in the process via badly optimized code.
This was an excellent read, btw.
I agree with the accepted answer that a toggle button UI -- when unadorned with any other indicators -- should be avoided due to the ambiguity. The fact that this question is being asked is an indicator of non-uniform consensus.
In American English, the verb "to table" means "to remove from discussion entirely", which is almost entirely the opposite meaning from English spoken anywhere else in the world, where it means "to bring forward for discussion". As a result of this US-specific confusion, there's not much choice besides either clarifying through context or avoiding sentence constructions using that verb, at least when speaking to or with other Americans.
I think the same applies here: the small UI space savings is not worth the inevitable UX confusion this would cause, without modifications.
Beyond that, there's dusting, cleaning windows, sinks, countertops, bathrooms, and probably things I don't even consider.
Of all the items you've listed, I personally rank floors as the most important to clean, followed by bathrooms, countertops, sinks, windows, and finally dusting. These are in order of which are used more frequently and how easily they'd be noticed. A dirty window (on the outside) is rarely dirty enough to outright block the sunlight, but grime on the floor will be tracked into other rooms, worsening the issue. Bathrooms are used daily, so would bother me if they're not at least reasonably seemly.
For keep floor clean, the zeroth step is to prevent dirt and grime from coming in at the onset. A shoes-off policy in the home is probably the most substantial in this effort. That's not to say you have to go barefoot -- although I do think it's quite nice -- since indoor slippers or shoes are an option. The next step would be to rip out all wall-to-wall carpet, if possible. I have a full rant about the drawbacks of carpet, but it will suffice to say that carpet traps dust and dirt whereas hard surfaces like tile or laminate do not.
After that, you may need to identify what exactly is dirtying your floors. If it's loose particulate (eg food crumbs), that's going to need a different solution than if it's loose hairs, which is different than dust or clothes threads. Crumbs or hair might suggest localized sweeping in the kitchen or bathroom will be most effective, while dust or threads suggest you need to adjust your clothes dryer settings, or your central air system needs a new/different filter.
The thing to keep in mind with all this is that grime does not come from nowhere: there is always a source, and the evidence will lead you to what's most effective to keep your home maintained. Even if you conclude that the dust is fallout from the nearby coal-burning power station, there will still be things you can do, such as campaigning for a fossil-fuel free world electrostatic air filters or keeping doors closed when not needed.
Here in California, I've heard both "military time" and "24 hour time" used interchangeably for writing the time as "03:45" or "16:20". That said, I've heard -- citation needed -- that proper military time does not use the colon, such as "1600", pronounced as "sixteen hundred hours".
As for why the public might refer to this generally as "military time", it may just be that that's the most common, well-known use-case in the States, outside of the sciences. I personally use 24 hour time on all my devices, but I've come across many people who prefer clockfaces or AM/PM, probably out of habit.
Just to be clear, this is about how signed commits appear in GitHub, right? Native Git signing is as robust -- and complex -- as it's always been, with the user having to keep their own GPG private and public keys. Managing these keys is the same process for signing outbound emails or preparing to receive inbound encrypted emails, with the attendant usability quirks like dealing with key revocation.
The author's main gripe appears to be with how GitHub presents a veneer of trust based on the commit signature, but not in pursuit of a cognizance security objective. That the veneer of "verified" could be confused with "safe to compile/execute" could regress overall security of users. I think this position is well-supported by the examples given.
But what I don't see is how this relates to Git signing at-large, when GitHub is not involved. The title of this Lemmy post and the blog post is "Unsigned Commits" and the author only ever mentions the consequences as they pertain to GitHub. Yet the same concern as the author's post can apply here: users who don't recognize that this is a GitHub-specific grievance might think ALL Git commit signing is useless, which is wrong. And that mistake would regress overall security of all Git users.
An example of Git signing outside of GitHub is the Linux kernel. Note that "PGP keys" are what GPG uses to sign the commits; that's not confusing at all.
PGP helps ensure the integrity of the code that is produced by the Linux kernel development community and, to a lesser degree, establish trusted communication channels between developers via PGP-signed email exchange.
Ever since the 2011 compromise of core kernel.org systems, the main operating principle of the Kernel Archives project has been to assume that any part of the infrastructure can be compromised at any time. For this reason, the administrators have taken deliberate steps to emphasize that trust must always be placed with developers and never with the code hosting infrastructure, regardless of how good the security practices for the latter may be.
As the Linux folks so eloquently put it, and in firm agreement with the author of this post, the infrastructure (kernel.org or GitHub) cannot be trusted over indefinite timescales, and problems will arise eventually. In disagreement with the author but in agreement with the Linux people, signed commits decentralize the trust, making the infra less useful to attack.
I personally still encourage Git signing, just like I would encourage email signing and encryption. But not just because GitHub is telling me I should. Every email and commit I produce, I should sign; the author here says I shouldn't, and I disagree. Signatures are valid for a specific purpose, until the day the signature key is revoked, which I can always do, however annoying.
TL;DR: Git signing is fine. What GitHub built atop native Git signing is questionable. Do sign stuff, but for real reasons, not just because GitHub tells you to.
I'm going to leave this here, supposedly the precursor to the BDSM thing. It's about horses. It's not nice to the horses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gingering
In the United States, cities and counties are the creations of state or territorial law, so you'll find a lot of different variations. Using California as an example, the counties are the first-level political subdivision, dividing every bit of land in the state into 58 pieces, some smaller and some bigger. Exclusively within each county, a city can be incorporated by the will of the people living there, either as a general law city or a charter city. The former uses some default rules prescribed by the state (usually suitable for small towns, which California law still calls a "city") and the latter being a mini constitution that allows creative municipal administration (eg "strong mayor" systems).
Incorporating a city removes the power and responsibility from the county to manage that territory and its affairs, giving that to the city government. It is a specific rule in California that no city can span two counties: hence adjacent cities like Sacramento and West Sacramento, that are in different counties.
Compare this system to Louisiana, which uses county-like parishes. Or to New York City, which is one big city made from five counties, each being the same territory as the five constituent boroughs of the city. Oh, and California has one "consolidated city and county" in the form of San Francisco, where the city expanded to include all land in the county, so the difference was meaningless and they merged the two.
So while counties are consistent in covering all the land in a state, cities don't necessarily follow consistent rules or reasons. More often, they follow population patterns (sometimes gerrymandered to include prison populations, for example) or to grab natural resources (eg Sacramento River waterfront).
Edit: I should mention that the smallest "towns" in California basically exist in name only, being Census Designated Places (CDPs) of the county. They have only their normal county representative, although CDPs tend to also have a county-level committee made of locals to advocate for their town, in front of the county Board of Supervisors.
As an aside, a "slow motion camera" and a "high speed camera" are understood to be the same object, being a camera that can capture at high frame rates, to slow down apparent motion in the video output.
This reminds me of a post I once saw, describing a person who (ab)used the C preprocessor to make an Old English version of C. It was clever, but obviously unmaintainable in a collaborative setting.
If this DreamBerd language is statically compiled, then it might still rank slightly above Tcl, a language I've had to use in production and despised every moment of it.
A static dissipating mat is designed to be somewhat conductive, so that any static charges that build up on a PCB or on yourself are distributed and equalized across the mat and anything in contact with it. The point is that you cannot have a sudden static discharge between two objects which have equalized charges (eg between your finger and a sensitive chip).
With that in mind, it should make sense that, when possible, you want to extend the "reach" of your mat by equalizing it with other things that can hold a charge, such as the floor, the door handle, the light switch, etc. All of those home furnishings are indirectly in contact with terra firma, and do slowly drain any accumulated charge to earth. But your electrical ground system provides a convenient, low-resistance copper path to quickly drain charge. So if it's available, you'd want to electrically "anchor" your mat to the Earth's charge using the electrical ground. Otherwise, just keep everything on or attached to the mat, including yourself by way of the wrist strap.
As an aside, in the electronics lab at my company, the floor was redone to the tune of six figures to install a semi conductive floor, so that engineers could wear ankle straps instead of wrist straps, all to protect from ESD damage. The reason that floor and your matt are only semi conducting is that an all-copper floor or mat could end up shorting out a PCB. So their resistance is a precise value which lets charges equalize but not too low to cause shorting issues.
At last, the justification I needed for wearing a chainmail undergarment!
In a nutshell: https://terikanefield.com/criminallawfaqs/
I would advise reading that page in order, and in full. It lays a lot of foundation as it goes. There is indeed a call-to-action at the end.
Our system resembles an obstacle course. One consequence of the hard work of people like Thurgood Marshall is taking power away from law enforcement and subjecting law enforcement (including prosecutors) to stringent rules. Federal Criminal Procedure is a full-semester law school course. It is mindbogglingly complex, but keep this in mind: The complexity is to create fairness.
Dear people who want the process to move more quickly: Be careful what you wish for. Giving more power to law enforcement (and prosecutors are part of law enforcement) might bring about the short-term results you want, but is not a good idea in the long run.
As with most things in life, it depends. Two people at different stages of life and career might evaluate the same investment drastically differently, against the criteria of their own priorities.
Years ago, I read the Bogleheads' Guide To Investing which thoroughly discussed, among other things:
Needless to say, most everyone would prefer a higher rate of return. But the caveat is how much it will cost. Some higher rates of return are almost without cost, such as switching from a brick-and-mortar savings account (0.01% APY) to an online savings account (~4.30% APY). This is almost a no-brainer.
Other investments have fantastic returns but have opportunity costs: buying into large infrastructure can pay huge dividends but take decades to become profitable, tying up the money and sometimes nearly bankrupting the Earl of Grantham. Even still, this could be advisable when viewed in the long-term.
Likewise, some investments have a paltry rate, but carry (almost) no risk of missed payments. Someone looking for a income later in life might be fairly pleased to have a steady stream of inflation-adjusted money.
Even corporations and governments evaluate investments differently than people, since corporeal legal entities aren't mortal and death is optional. Indeed, investment priorities are a lot different for sovereign entities, which cannot declare bankruptcy precisely because of their power to raise taxes.
I hope these examples show that the qualities of an investment -- independent of quantitative measures like return rate or revenue per share -- can be "good" in different ways.
In the US, Home Depot and Lowes have drop-off bins for rechargeable batteries by the front door.
Try to tape up at least one end of the battery or one lead from the battery, to prevent discharge fires.
jiggery pokery
+1 just because I love seeing this phrase in the wild
without comments
Oof
1 - I get that light is flashed in binary to code chips but how does it actually fookin work ? What is the machine emmiting [sic] this light made up of ?
This video by Branch Education (on YouTube or Nebula) is a high level explanation of every step in a semiconductor fab. It doesn't go over the details of how semiconductor junctions work, though. That sort of device physics is discussed in this YouTube video by Ben Eater, "how semiconductors work"
2 - How was program's, OSs, Kernal [sic] etc loaded on CPU in early days when there were no additional computers to feed it those like today ?
When the CPU powers up, typically the very first thing it starts to execute is the bootloader. Bootloaders will vary depending on the system, and today's modern Intel or AMD desktop machines boot very differently to their 1980s predecessor. However, since the IBM PC laid the foundation for how most computers booted up for a nearly four decades, it may be instructive to see how it worked in the 80s. This WikiBook on x86 bootloading should be valid for all 32-bit x86 targets, from the original 8086 to the i686. It may even be valid further, but UEFI started to take off, which changed everything into a more modern form.
But even before the 80s, computers could have a program/kernel/whatever loaded using magnetic tape, punch cards, or even by hand with physical switches, each representing one bit.
But how does the computer decode this binary "machine code" into instructions to perform? See this video by Ben Eater, explaining machine instructions for the MOS 6502 CPU (circa 1975). The age of the CPU is not important, but rather that by the 70s, the basics of CPU operations has already been laid down, and that CPU is easy to explain yet non-trivial.
3 - I get internet is light storing information but how ? Fookin HOW ?
The mechanics of light bouncing inside a fibre optic cable is well-explained in this YouTube video by engineerguy. But for an explanation of how ones-and-zeros get converted into light to be transmitted, that's a bit more involved. I might just point you to the Wikipedia page for fibre optic communications.
How the data is encoded is important, as this has significant impact on bandwidth and data integrity, not just for light but for wireless RF transmission and wireline transmission. For wireless, this Branch Education video on Starlink (YouTube or Nebula) is instructive. And for wired, this Computerphile YouTube video on ADSL covers the challenges faced.
Quite frankly, I might just recommend the entirety of the Computerphile channel, particularly their back catalogue when they laid down computer fundamentals.
4 - How did it all come to be like it is today and ist it possible for one human to even learn how it all works or are we just limited one or two things ? Like cab we only know how to program or how to make hardware but not both or all ?
As of 2024, the field is enormous, to the point that a CompSci degree necessarily has to be focused on a specific concentration. But that doesn't necessarily mean the hard stuff like device physics are off-limits, leaving just stuff like software and AI. Sam Zeloof has been making homemade microchips, devising his own semiconductor process and posting it on YouTube..
Specifically to your question about either software or hardware, the specialty of embedded software engineering requires skills with low-level software or firmware, as well as dealing with substantial hardware-specific details. People that write drivers or libraries for new hardware require skills from both regimes, being the bridge between Electrical Engineers that design the hardware, and software developers that utilize the hardware.
Likewise, developers for high performance computers need to know the hardware inside-out, to have any chance of extracting every last bit (pun intended) of speed. However, these developers tend to rely upon documentation such as data sheets, rather than having to be keenly aware of how the hardware was manufactured. Some level of logical abstraction is necessary to tractably understand today's necessarily large and complex systems.
5 - Do we have to join Intel first or something to learn how most of the things work lol ?
Nope! Often, you can look to existing references, such as Linux source code, to provide a peek at what complexities exist in today's machines. I say that, but the Linux kernel is truly a monster, not because it's badly written, but because they willingly take code to support every single bleeding platform that people are willing to author code for. And that means lots and lots of edge cases; there's no such thing as a "standard" computer. X86 might be the closest to a "standard" but Intel has never quite been consistent across that architecture's existence. And ARM and RISC-V are on the rise, in any case.
Perhaps what's most important is to develop strong foundations to build on. Have a cursory understanding of computing, networking, storage, wireless, software licenses, encryption, video encoding/decoding, UI/UX, graphics, services, containers, data and statistical analysis, and data exchange formats. But then pick one and focus on it, seeing how it interacts with other parts of the computing world.
Growing up, I had an interest in IT and computer maintenance. Then it evolved into writing websites. Then into writing C++ software. Right before university, I started playing around with the Arduino's Atmel 328p CPU directly, and so I entered uni as a Computer Engineer, hoping to do both software and hardware.
The space is huge, so start somewhere that interests you. From the examples above, I think online videos are a fantastic resource, but so can blog posts written by engineers at major companies, as can talks at conferences, as can sitting in at university courses.
Good luck and good studies!
Obligatory link to the Useless Use of Cat Awards
It's more that this claim of immunity causes a pause in the proceedings. My understanding is that there are many ways to pause different sorts of proceedings, such as insanity in a criminal trial and bankruptcy in a civil trial. In these two cases, though, once the issue has passed, the trial starts again where it was.
However, for pauses caused by claims of immunity or anti-SLAPP hearings, the result of those hearings could cause the trial to become moot, meaning the proceeding would immediately end. And that's why there's a pause in the first place.
In that sense, there is no circumnavigation because if immunity does apply, the trial wouldn't matter. And if it doesn't apply, the trial would proceed. Judicially, there is no drawback, but politically, burning down the clock may be a goal of the defense, as the primary and general elections draw closer.
It is very tempting to dismiss seemingly frivolous issues out of hand, and the judge could have done that. But presidential immunity has been a gray legal area -- see Nixon presidency -- such that judicial confidence isn't fully established. In a way, the judge is saying "ok, show me what you've got" knowing that proof of immunity is an uphill battle, waiting for the defense to fall flat.
Funnily enough, the reason I thought to look for this double-sided sofa is because a friend joked about a two-person toilet. This isn't what I had in mind, but it's amazing nevertheless.
Thank you for improving my happiness today!
It's unclear if you mean an outdoor faucet appearing out the side of a house, or a freestanding garden spigot. But in either case, the full solution often involves replacing the spigot with a frost-free spigot. It prevents freezing by having the valve located somewhere warmer, such as within the house or underground.
The normal handle will turn a long rod connected to the valve, and when closed will drain the excess water out the spigot, leaving no water outside or above ground that can freeze. The freestanding spigot has the complication of needing an underground gravel base to drain the excess water into.
An alternative might be to use an air compressor to force water out of your spigots, as part of annual winterization. This only works if you don't plan to use the faucet during the cold season, though.
Most (all?) health insurance companies in USA have clauses in their agreements with in-network providers (ie doctors, hospitals, pharmacists) to permit a covered patient to first receive the Explanation Of Benefits (EOB) document from the insurance company first, before having to pay a provider. In fact, waiting for the EOB is highly advisable, because paying a provider's bill in-full and then later having to obtain a refund because the insurer paid out is akin to pulling teeth (that is, painful and difficult).
The EOB also shows which claims the provider actually filed with the insurance company, which if full-and-complete means you should not expect to make any further payments for services received.
To be clear, the EOB also includes any amount which the covered patient is known to have paid at the time of service. For example, most in-network doctor's offices will charge the insurance policy's copay on-the-spot before seeing the doctor, since this is a known, fixed amount and insurance will pay the doctor some sort of negotiated remainder.
You should verify the EOB reflects any copays you've already paid, and that the costs have accrued toward whichever deductible applies to you -- more than one deductible can be at play.
To answer your question directly, I would not start any negotiation until you have the EOB in hand, because otherwise you are negotiating blind: you won't know which claims have been filed, and you won't know how much insurance has agreed to already pay.
What I mean is, this program draws from a scraped database, right? Is there any reason it couldn't also search an online database using DICT, to potentially get more definitions that aren't in the Cambridge Dictionary?
Excellent work, btw
Depending on how well-provisioned your local community library is, a Kill-o-Watt may be something you can borrow for this exact task!
I can't answer the question directly, but this page (est 10 minutes read) puts into context how well that line of argument has been received in the courts so far: https://terikanefield.com/absoluteimmunity/
While not impossible, it would certainly up-end a fair amount of constitutional jurisprudence to accept the idea that there might be someone above the law.
To use the pharmacology vernacular, the route of administration for a medication (or supplement in this case) is a balance of pragmatic and biological considerations. Sublingual administration -- aka under the tongue -- gives access to a lot of capillaries, meaning the medication is quickly absorbed into the blood, without having to go through the liver and first-pass metabolism, which is what would happen with oral administration (aka swallowing a pill). As a practical matter, sublingual tends to be easier if someone cannot swallow, and because it's very effective, the dosage can be reduced, which potentially could cost less, maybe.
I'm not a pharmacist, but you may find this video by ChubbyEmu adjacently interesting. It is about the difference in topical (aka on skin) absorption rates around the body, where the same dosage can be safe on one's arm but hazardous on more delicate skin regions.
I'm only cursorily familiar with WebDAV, but I think the needs of cloud storage aligned much better to the object storage model than WebDAV's file/directory structure. For example, in a distributed cloud across continents, referencing a file in WebDAV might have a canonical path, but object storage would just need a key or hash. And by using a key/hash, automatic deduplication is achieved, since the same object should hash to the same key. File paths necessarily imply context, but the point of clouds is to be homogeneous. If paths need to be world-unique but locally-cached, then the path is just a unique identifier and we slowly end up with the database-like semantics of object storage anyway.
Phrased another way, a file/directory structure imparts an organization to the contents of those files. Cloud doesn't need that organization, so throwing stuff in the junk drawer is perfectly reasonable.
I saw "terminal" and "dictionary" and thought this was going to be using the DICT protocol to retrieve definitions. If that's not supported, could that be added?
Not for any reason other than I think it's cool to look up stuff remotely using nothing more than curl. But this is definitely easier to read.
This entire series by Cathode Ray Dude is a wonderful dive into the world of PC boot sequence, for the folks interested in a touch of embedded architecture. His delivery is also on-point, given the complexity and obscurity of the topics.
From this video alone (41:15):
And (43:59):