Honestly prefer it to milk in tea. I still use milk at home since I can’t be arsed to have fancy milk for porridge and tea only but at the office I’ll go for the oat milk by preference.

The restrictions are pretty reasonable. The obvious “risk” of abuse is that this is a slippery slope and both the rules get relaxed and the safeguards lose their funding and attention over time, but the chance of that happening increases over time, there’s no way in hell they’ll be making a dent in the benefits bill for the next few years.

So I don’t think your suggested link between this and the current governments goal of reducing benefits is the truth, or even particularly credible.

Maybe there will be problems in 20 years, it’s certainly a reasonable fear and I don’t blame anyone who argued against it to avoid that risk, but I can’t seriously believe that anyone thinks the government is going to use this to start killing off benefit claimants in job lots.

Tldr: your ”truth” is a pretty dumb take

We’ve already lucked into a solution to the population boom, the numbers will level off around 10 billion. Given how intractable population control is, we’re very lucky we’ve found this without some dystopian shitshow.

In the developed world we are approaching the opposite problem, we’re currently dependant on immigration to maintain our societies, but as the rest of the world stops growing we’ll have more trouble getting that immigration and won’t have the local young population to care for our elderly.

Given that we should be trying to figure out how to encourage a sustainable population whilst we still have time to do so. If we can choose between 1.9->2.2 children per couple as needed then we’ll be in a healthy position to slowly reduce the population to a comfortable level.

Right now our natural population decline in the developed world is too fast, probably because our society has made being a parent quite an individual burden. Of course, totally moving the costs to a societal model would be a disaster, but presumably there’s a middle ground where people are comfortable keeping the society going at a healthy rate.

That’s exactly the answer given to you above - the line is murky and grey, there is no clear point that everyone agrees is the right point.

In such a circumstance, the right answer is open to interpretation, and the right solution for a society is to accept that the best person to make that decision is the person involved.

If you want my answer, it’s when brain cells develop enough to start looking like a functioning brain (somewhere around 16-20 weeks). Before that it’s just a brain dead mass of cells regardless of how it looks.

Clearly you have a different moment, and that’s fine, but you don’t get to ignore that the issue is open to interpretation. Otoh, I admit that both sides are guilty of trying to railroad a “simple” interpretation as the only right answer, it’s always tempting to force a simple answer and declare the problem solved, it’s harder to let people decide for themselves what the right answer is, but that’s the right thing to do when we as a society cannot reach a consensus, and we certainly don’t seem to have a consensus on this one.

I got “little miss naughty”. I am a man in my mid 30s, I never do pranks, I don’t go out of my way to cause trouble.

How can it see parts of my soul that I thought were lost?

Yeah, the switch has an entire core locked off and everything is downclocked to improve battery life and control temperatures. No doubt this emulation gives everything more clock cycles (and perhaps an extra core?). Probably very short on battery and possibly very hot too.

I heard that woke figures in key positions meet at their secret woke clubhouse where they discuss their woke evil plans on controlling the world and making everyone woke.

Honestly I want to start the secret society of woke, not because I expect it to get a single influential member, but because just existing will make every right wing nutter blame every single thing on the secret woke society 😄

I bet the logic is that the kids they’re trying to protect are rarely able to splash on a high end vaping product and then keep it secretly from their parents long enough to justify the purchase.

But disposable vapes are perfect for the teenage grey market, finish it and throw it away and parents need never know.

Watch the music video “Let’s go” by stuck in the sound for another take on exactly this scenario.

https://youtu.be/52Gg9CqhbP8?si=fKzjWGeAXE1S7D2f

The answer is dependent on context I think.

In a universe where the whole future of the world is laid out before you and you can choose 1 death or many deaths, then sure, pick the greater good.

The weakness of simplistic “greater good” automatic arguments is that in a real universe it opens you up to manipulation.

In the end, there’s no avoiding thinking through the incentives from all perspectives. And that indeed suggests not giving in to the rioters, to protect the integrity of the entire legal system and reduce the risk that every trial becomes a show trial dictated by whoever has the biggest mob.

Actual actual answer: WFH

Seems like even amongst willing criminals, you’d have to be particularly stupid to join in a massive Snapchat planned robbery, more cameras recording the crime than brain cells involved in planning it.

The EFF is probably competitive there. But clearly they’re both on the same side of most issues, so not really a competition.

Hi.

Firstly, you seem to be wanting to get an answer to your programming question, that’s not what you should be doing, it’s bad practice.

Instead, let me make some assumptions about what you’re trying to do, and suggest that isn’t a worthy cause. Instead you should enjoy this totally useless reply.

Remember to accept this answer and close your question or I shall return to berate you again!