Have you read the messages? According to the person who decided not to publish them there was stuff potentially more significant.
War plans being accidentally sent to a journalist is intrinsically in the public interest.

I was unaware the classified information being “boring” was a good reason for a news outlet to self censor.

Also… The Pentagon papers were literally just “boring war plans”. War plans often contain motivation and desired outcomes, which are sometimes big news.

Publishing classified information, no matter how innocuous or unharmful, is still illegal

Citation needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/

We’ve got pretty good case law to show that freedom of the press goes pretty far, and that since the public has a pretty clear interest in the information it’s pretty much a given they can publish it.
If they prosecuted the Atlantic for it, they’d also need to hold that whoever sent them the classified information was guilty of the same offense.

How’d that work out for Poland?

It’s unfortunate, but an aggressive shitty neighbor is your problem, even if you don’t want to deal with them.

Trumps rhetoric, if coming from the head of a different country, would be used to justify a drone strike. And it wouldn’t even be one people would use as an example of why dronestrikes are bad.

Thank you for being uncertain. :) I mean that sincerely. Some people are too quick to dismiss doctors expertise, and some people are too eager to try to use medication to solve “boredom”. Trying to make sure you’re actually doing the right thing is great.

Just remember: one of the effected things is executive function , or the ability to act deliberately and stay on task. You unfortunately see a trend of people who think “they don’t need medication, we just need to teach the better study skills/to focus/etc”, which is the one bit you can’t teach.
And get them a bowl to put whatever that thing they keep misplacing in. They might not be able to remember where they put it, but they can learn to always put it in the bowl.

I got medicated as an adult, so I can’t directly share my experiences relating to your question.

I wish I had been medicated at a younger age, since I can see so many problems I had in my life that were ultimately related to entirely unmanaged ADHD.
I also turned out fine without it, things were just more difficult.

Make sure you trust your pediatrician and that you’re on the same page as them. That’ll make it easier to feel confident that their advice is in line with your goals. They all have your kids best interest at heart, but there are different emphasis they can focus on which might not mesh with yours.

Talk with your kid and see how they feel. They might not be old enough to fully articulate things, but you can try to get a feel for if they’re feeling volatile, struggling or things like that. Look at how they play alone and with others, and at how they engage with homework.

Start slow, and work your way up.

It’s most likely gasoline. It’s very difficult to engineer upholstery and rubber to be resistant to prolonged exposure to an open gas fire. Usually the best you can do is get to a minimum safe time for certain temperatures.

The highest standards you’ll run into day to day are baby clothing, bedding, and residential wall insulation.
The reasons for those being specifically regulated should be relatively obvious, and are respectively heartbreaking, scary, and sensible.

Cars tend to be going fast when they encounter issues, and there’s a lot less ability to make a lot of assurances. As a result, cars tend to be designed for controlled failure rather than resilience. This allows to car to fail around the passengers, hopefully resulting in the car, which is totaled anyway, absorbing the damage the passengers would have otherwise gotten.
We can make a car that can take a 45mph collision with an oak tree. We just don’t know upfront that that’s how it’s going to crash, and the squishy people inside can’t be made to tolerate a 45mph collision with the dashboard. So instead of making a perfect fuel tank, we just make sure that if it breaks it tries to rupture the fuel away from the passenger compartment. Instead of making the upholstery incapable of burning (which comes with downsides like “expensive”, “uncomfortable”, “ugly”, “smelly”, or “even more toxic than current flame retardants”) we make it able to resist burning for as long as it would take for the air inside the vehicle to become deadly hot. It doesn’t matter if the seat fabric is unscathed if the fire is hot enough to warp the metal.

Beyond all that, Tesla’s are notoriously poorly engineered, and in that category the cyber truck is best in class. I do not know, but would not be surprised, if accelerant was simply able to seep into the more flammable parts of the car from the outside.

As for surveillance catching the people, covering your face, obscuring identifying marks, and simply being far away by the time anyone notices the fire is a good bet. The police might try a bit harder because it’s an expensive property crime, but it’s ultimately a property crime where no one is going to be building their career on it, so there won’t be real incentive to go above and beyond.

Wow, way to bury the lede article.
“Which should we emphasize: protestors with signs, or supporters of the thing trying to kill them?”.

Clearly the existence of protestors is the most important thing about this story.

No, the supreme Court ruled that the individual who is the president has immunity for actions taken in a presidential capacity. Absolute immunity for exercising presidential powers, and and presumptive for actions taken as the president, pending the prosecutions ability to argue that holding the individual personally liable couldn’t possibly infringe of their exercise of constitutional powers, and they have to make that case without referring to intent.

The specific case was about when trump, as president, contacted Governors and law enforcement to try to convince them to overturn the election for him. Under their ruling, since he was acting as the president, they decided you can’t consider his intent. So the prosecution would need to argue that there’s no possible infringement on constitutional power if the president can be prosecuted for discussing an election, election security, and election interference with Governors and law enforcement.

It’s also worth noting that, economically, it’s not surprising that the country with the most people would have the largest economy.

There’s nothing fundamentally different between the people of the US and China beyond the conditions they’re born in. Insofar as innovation is a product of economics, educational investment, opportunity for innovation and a random chance it happens, and economic strength is a product of innovation and raw work output, it follows that more people leads to more work output, and eventually to a larger, more innovative economy.

A disorganized China and some key innovation breakthroughs by the west last century gave a significant headstart, and some of Maos more unwise choices slowed their catch-up, but it’s not surprising that an organized country with five times the US population would surpass us in economics and innovation, to say nothing of being competitive.

Please let’s try to keep generative AI from claiming the entire word “AI”.
Current generative AI is good at and built for mimicking patterns with boundary conditions.
This means it does a decent job of imitating authoritative knowledge, but it’s just mimicking it.
People are hyped for it because it looks knowledgeable, it’s relatively simple to make, and a lot of what we do is text based so it’s easy to apply.

There are a lot of other types of AI, the majority even, that work significantly better, take a small fraction of the computing power and provide helpful and meaningful results. They just don’t look like anything other than complex math, which is all any of them are in the end.

There was a time when I was a student that I spent a lot of time near a particular coffee shop, and more than you would typically expect for just studying and the like, since it turned into the place where my friend group basically hung out most of the time.
In any case, it was a decently high traffic area and since I was there a lot I found two wallets and a cellphone over the time I was there a lot.

One wallet had an emergency contact I was able to call, think it was their mother, and that I’d be at the coffee shop for a bit. They brought me cookies, and I was thrilled.
Next person just had their phone number, and they acted like I was a creep for saying I had their wallet and would like to give it back to them, so I told them I was leaving it with the cashier and left it at that and was a bit sad, since being told off for trying to be nice is a bummer.
Cellphone was the worst. I called their most recent number and told them what was up (this was clearly before ubiquitous lock screens). Owner called me back in the same number and threatened to call the cops on me so I hung up, powered off the phone and put it back where I found it. Felt sad.

Given how it seems like everyone has lost their minds now, I’m not sure I would risk letting someone know I found their stuff. I’d still try to return it because that’s the right thing to do, but I’m not sure if I’d be willing to use my own phone number or anything.
If people will shoot you for using their driveway to turn around I can only imagine what they’d do for a bus pass, student ID and a loyalty punch card for a bakery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pancakes

Seems very relevant. Found it while trying to find the etymology of “flapjack”, since I thought about it and that’s not a normal word.

I also found out that some countries have a pancake day, where they eat pancakes. Seems to be a different method of celebrating what we call Mardi gras or Fat Tuesday, depending on your proximity to France/Louisiana. We often have something like a donut.
Seems the intent is the same: eat all your animal fat before lent so it doesn’t go to waste.

Your cooking looks delicious! I would call it a crepe, but whatever it’s called I would eat it. :)

How is it even legal to have explicitly preferential pay for people not in a union? Is there a limit to that, or can companies just say, “Anyone who joins a union will be paid minimum wage.”

What I’m saying is that if they can set “$0.50 above union rates” as the company policy for everyone, they can also set “$5 above union rates” as the company policy for everyone and then cut union rates by $5.

That’s you. That’s what we’re talking about: why they can’t “set “$5 above union rates” as the company policy for everyone and then cut union rates by $5”.

You were told it’s because of the unions contract that they can’t cut union rates, and paying people not to join is a violation of labor law.
You then replied about how that wouldn’t work because everyone left the union so they don’t have bargaining power.
And yeah, if the union has no power they probably don’t have a good contract, but that’s aside from the point of “a unions contract prevents their pay from being cut on a whim”.

I’m treating it like a weird add-on to the discussion because it is. They can’t cut pay because of their contract, unless their contract doesn’t stop that, in which case they can.

… What?

Your screenshot has the founder saying it’s reparable. It also has him telling someone with unreasonable expectations that they would be disappointed.

If you literally take his comment out of context you can construe it as him saying they didn’t consider repairability or lifetime. But why wouldn’t you look at the context that’s right there?

There’s a limit to how much they can pay the ununionized workers before it becomes clear they’re trying to interfere with the workers rights to free organization. In the image, it’s quite likely that the extra 50¢ is union dues, or could be explained as related to costs.

Literally the first reply I sent you.

If you don’t know the basics of labor law and how companies are ostensibly prohibited from preventing organization, you really don’t have a lot of room to get upset when people think you don’t know stuff.

That… is literally the thing being discussed here.

No, it’s a nonsequitur you brought up out of nowhere. You asked why the company doesn’t just pay the union less, and when people told you replied assuming that everyone knew that all the workers left the union.

And you won’t, or can’t, respond to my point. It doesn’t matter that it’s a nonsequitur, you’re still obligated to respond to it premptively, you fool.

Yes, if everyone leaves the union it doesn’t have power. Fucking duh. It doesn’t work that way because it’s illegal to pay people to not be in the union, since it infringes on people’s rights to collective bargaining. Which I politely said in my first reply to you when I just thought you were ignorant, rather than obstinate and rude as well.

You just started randomly attacking me for no reason

Crystal more. You’re the one who kicked off being angry when you found out I thought you were just genuinely ignorant, as opposed to properly stupid.

You also didn’t take into account every person in the state being in the Union, and the company only employing union workers, and the one non-union person, the CEO, was so afraid of loosing business at his company that only makes pro-union T-shirts that he wept openly at the thought of not capitulating to the unions every demand.

Clearly a bird has eaten most of your frontal cortex and you’ve confused the concept of negotiations with women’s freestyle swimming.

At this point I’m fairly certain you’re just trolling, since you asked a dumb question, responded to answers with nonsense scenarios and indignation, and then responded to clarification as though your scenario were a given.

Because referring to changing pay rates for union workers as a policy change pretty heavily implies it’s not a negotiation, and “why wouldn’t the company just get the union to agree to a significant pay cut” is an even more asinine point. They obviously would have if the could have. The assumption that you didn’t know unions negotiated contracts seemed more charitable than thinking you didn’t know how bargaining worked.

Most of the downvotes I got (so far) came before I added that part.

Okay.