I think the parent commenter is referring to a general dislike for target="_blank" (i.e. new tab) links. Probably because there's a way to force a link to open in a new tab, but not a consistent way to force it to open in the same tab.
Basically it's a setting for people who are concerned about being targeted by 0days.
> Lockdown Mode is an optional, extreme protection that’s designed for the very few individuals who, because of who they are or what they do, might be personally targeted by some of the most sophisticated digital threats.
I think most non-perishable goods are the same across stores. There are regional differences between some perishable goods based on where they come from.
AFAICT The Junk Science at play here is not that SBS doesn't exist, but that the triad of symptoms is enough to definitively prove SBS.
The reference to Texas is because the subject of the article is a particular case in Texas (with references to other laws/cases in Texas like the "junk science writ" and Kosoul Chanthakoummane whose case had nothing to do with SBS).
The reference to hypnosis is sort of orthogonal to SBS, it's used as another example of junk science in the article.
This section of the article is probably the most relevant:
Paradoxically, Texas is a leader in countering junk science. In 2013, the state introduced a first-in-the-nation “junk science writ” that allowed prisoners – especially those on death row – to challenge sentences on grounds of misused forensic science. It was under this law that in 2016 Sween saved Roberson from imminent death by securing a stay of execution four days before his scheduled lethal injection.
But the hope generated by the new junk science law in Texas has proven a chimera. There have been about 70 attempts by death row inmates to utilize the law and of those the number that have obtained relief is zero.
Kosoul Chanthakoummane was one of those who appealed through the junk science law. He had been put on death row on the back of three different types of junk science: hypnosis of a witness to obtain identification, bitemark analysis and a discredited form of DNA testimony.
FWIW this seems to be a NY focused publication and my understanding is that the tradition started on WNEW. I grew up listening to it, but I have no idea how far it’s spread outside of the NYC metro area.
I’m not the parent commenter, but I believe they’re making the case that there are negative externalities that come from not wearing protective equipment which are borne by others in some form or another. In Canada, for example, there is a very direct cost to others because of their universal healthcare.
Thanks, I had a feeling that is what they were talking about but wasn't positive. That seems like a selfish stance to have, and also ironic considering the ideologies behind universal healthcare.
How much money even gets spent on medical bills for bikers who choose not to wear helmets? If everyones personal lifestyle choices now have a monetary impact on each other, then how much intervention does this justify? Should people be forced to eat healthy and exercise? Obesity cost the healthcare system significantly more than motorcycle injuries. Alcohol, candy, cigarettes, even OTC drugs have a huge cost on the healthcare system, should those be illegal? What about mental health? Should people be prevented from doing anything considered "health threatening" out of the fear they may cost tax payers money?
Also should people be allowed to opt-out of a universal healthcare system and be exempt from lifestyle regulations?
What is selfish about regulating some things that otherwise put a burden on society and have almost no upside for the individual if not regulated? Even if they and their families pay the highest cost for their stupidity, this doesn't mean there is no case for regulation.
You don't even know if they have families/dependents, and people should be allowed to make their own choices regardless. If you are concerned about the burden of taking care of others then you should criticize universal healthcare rather than try to dictate peoples lives. Don't bring those liabilities into your life if you are unwilling to deal with them.
It's a complicated and interesting debate. In places where we have universal healthcare we want to simultaneously provide coverage for everyone and allow the maximum freedom possible, but these goals are somewhat conflicting. We still think universal healthcare is of paramount importance for the well being of the group, so it takes the priority. This means reckless behavior can be frowned upon, smoking discouraged and seat belts enforced.
From my european pov I've always felt universal healthcare would never work in the US due to this focus on individual freedom over almost anything else.
You're right, for most simple use cases it doesn't matter. But I once spent an hour on a weird bug that turned out to just be some plugin applying a map that I didn't know about and that I didn't know about map expansion. So I might be biased, but I think a loose understanding is helpful.
The default behavior is to recursively expand and apply your mappings and "noremap" disables this recursion.
For example if you do something like
I think the reasoning is less nefarious, Chrome apps never got that much love on other platforms, and I'm guessing they want to move towards Progressive Web Apps.
reply