Rather than "invented pretty much all scuba gear," Jacques-Yves Cousteau, along with Émile Gagnan, designed the first reliable and commercially successful open-circuit-demand scuba set, known as the Aqua-Lung in 1943 in Nazi-occupied France.

Lew should sue Adelstein for slander, libel, and menacing her, possibly stalking for threatening her, possibly even battery depending what was caught on camera in the hallway, for twice what she gave him. Adelstein can't win and Lew can't lose, and that will shut him up, and maybe even give the arrogant assholes in the game a little warning.

Agreed. His entry violated the rules. Since his entry was subterfuge, and he is benefitting from the attention of refusing the award, he should probably be banned from future contests.

Cannabis is more like a stabilizer than an antidepressant. It doesn't really elevate mood for any length of time. But there is a cure for depression, and after about 30 years of study of it as a fast acting treatment for major depression, the FDA finally approved one formulation of it last August, though I would recommend instead pure dextromethorphan (not HBr). 300-1200mg of dextromethorphan (along with 30mg of pepsid for the nausea) will stop a major depression in its tracks fast, and the antidepressive effects can last up to a year. The side effects while medicated are pretty terrible, and the sedative effect is irresistible, but 8-12 hours later, depression is cured like aspirin cures a headache. The problem is one must stay awake (caffeine for stimulant) to be able to remain hydrated or there can be pretty severe hyperthermic reaction leading to (reversible but annoying) brain damage. And if awake, the delusions caused by large doses of DXM (again only while medicated) can also be irresistible, so care must be taken to never act on them and be in an environment without any external suggestion. The beauty of it is that it is unscheduled and more or less uncontrolled, available OTC and online, and it is a relatively safe and a very old drug. In the 80 since it's been available only a handful have managed to kill themselves with it, but never directly, always with secondary effects like hyperthermia and/or dehydration. The lethal dose is an estimation because it is unknown. I have to repeat this because it is so hard for everyone to believe: dextromethorphan cures major depression like aspirin cures a headache.

And intelligence agencies are not only experts in virology, they have absolutely no ulterior motives or reasons to lie and spread misinformation about PRC.

Idiot. See my last comment and check my references where I link to the very minutes of the Constitutional Congress proving the Second only concerns militia, and "the people" of the militia, and not "The People" of the United States. Your head is full of garbage. You've been lied to and religiously believe the lies because it is what you want to believe. You are sleeping. You do not want to believe the truth. You are sleeping.

Your liberal and obtuse reading is astoundingly unpersuasive. The first three words of the Second, "A well-regulated militia," set the scope of the amendment. Quite obviously, since militias have nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, the Second could never have anything to do with hunting, so your implication is wrong on its face.

We know what the Second meant to the Framers of the Constitution, we absolutely know for certain and beyond all doubt, because we have documentary evidence in the form of kept minutes of the Constitutional Congresses by none other than James Madison:

"To establish an uniformity of exercise and arms for the "militia and rules for their government when called into "service under the authority of the United States: and to "establish and regulate a militia in any State where it's [sic] Legislature shall neglect to do it." It was moved and seconded to refer the last two motions to a Committee which passed in the affirmative."

Source: The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2, pg.323 (326)

The Framers were not ever debating about crime or hunting; these ideas never remotely entered into the discussion. Are you kidding me? The Framers did not intend for an armed citizenry, period, and the only reason you and most gun owners are confused is due to blatant lies spread by the NRA and Justice Scalia going out of his way and way beyond the scope of the case to invent unsupportable bullshit in his opinion in DC v. Heller (2008).

This article sums up the historical academic consensus on the intentions of The Framers with the Second, and ELI5's it for you. So suck it up, stop lying to yourself, and decide whether you accept what The Framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights actually intended, or, conversely, that you are a deviant that refuses to accept the social contract. It is either/or. Either you are a self-less patriot... or a some kind of damn obsessively entitled self-serving cowardly fearful criminal renegade pirate. Either way, now you can stop being a fool and deceiving yourself into believing whatever the fuck you want. We know what the Second means. We know. It's concern is protection against tyranny, not hunting, not crime, and not self-defense. Tyranny. And what you believed previously to reading this comment and confirming the references is provably patently false, not the least reason for which is that I just proved it false.

No, that is not the greater point. It is an absurd notion.

You are repeating dogshit, the conspiracy rhetoric of the radical Right that is entirely unsupportable. The only conservatives that operate in their own interests are the wealthiest conservatives, the one-percenters. You and 99.9% of all the others that do not have $1M and do not earn more than $350K/yr are being bamboozled and distracted by irrelevant issues, such as Second Amendment paranoia and abortion, and defrauded into voting against your personal economic interests in order to keep the richest the richest. You are shooting yourself in your own foot. All that matters with your vote is economic considerations. And it comes down to one simple choice: Do you want to keep the wealthiest the wealthiest at your own personal expense, sacrificing your own economic opportunity to do so? Or do you want to personally economically advance? That is all. That is what you should be deciding when you vote, not whether you think the Second is going to be repealed, because I have a clue for you, it will never be repealed. If there ever is another Constitutional Amendment that passes it will be one that severely limits government authority to do or say anything about a woman's vagina, and if you are a man, you should not care unless you are a misogynist. The Second is set in stone, but it will take another twenty years at least until the Supreme Court is balanced before it will be sorted out. But it will be, I promise you, because idiotic self-deceiving Conservatives have been shrinking in numbers for a long time, and for more than twenty years have held on by their toenails in being vastly over-represented in Congress at the expense of everyone else. There is power in numbers, and the Conservatives are vastly outnumbered now, and will continue to shrink as more of them get a Goddamn clue and wake up to the fact that all that the Republicans care about is dismantling government to ensure the richest keep nearly all of the available wealth. A reckoning is coming. It is already in progress. The political pendulum is about to cease swinging, and this is a good thing, and nearly all, including yourself, will benefit, whether you like it or not. The seven hundred or so billionaires in our country probably won't be happy about it. Fuck 'em.

You could not be more wrong. The Second is just fine as it is. The only example I can recall of the Court vandalizing the Constitution is DC v. Heller, changing the literal and historical meaning of the Second concerning a selfless right to stand against tyranny to a stupid and selfish right to murder in order to protect your material wealth, with Justice Scalia massively overstepping the authority and purview of the Supreme Court. It will be corrected when we get some more honest, reliable, and competent Justices on the Court. And Article V of the Constitution provides precisely two and only two ways of changing the Constitution: Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures. Always two there are, no more, no less.

The First Amendment does not read:

A well-regulated press, religion and assembly...

The Second Amendment is only concerns militia. The Founders never intended and armed citizenry. The NRA and Justice Scalia have vandalized the Second Amendment, twisting it from a selfless right to protect others against tyranny into a cowardly and selfish right to protect property and shoot children in the back.

Second Amendmenters love to focus on the least important clause of the Amendment and completely ignore the most critical and important. How do we know the first three words are the most important? Because they are first , not to mention the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses, which makes the Founders' intention abundantly clear. They debated self-defense, and intentionally left it out of the Amendment. Thus, the Second Amendment never had anything whatsoever to do with crime or self-preservation. The entire purpose of the Amendment was to create a force to stand in for an army which the early US could not afford.

So how many gun owners actually do their duty under the Second Amendment? 26 August 1968, the Black Panthers properly displayed an exercise of the Second Amendment by surrounding the Alameda Court House. That is what it looks like, and not George Zimmerman killing Trayvon Martin in cold blood. By and large nearly all gun owners are frightened little children, infants, that are obsessed with toys. The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights provides us no rights to toys, children.

If it could just sit around, unattended, and the value picked up at no cost 300 years from now, then you might be right. The reason you're wrong is the cost of storage and security would make it cost more than just digging up the ore, which is already so expensive that nuclear will never have any investors. You can't just hand wave at this. You actually have to make it profitable. I'll make you a deal: you make nuclear power profitable, and you can have all the nuclear power and nuclear waste gifted to future genetations that you want.

What everyone was saying was how "snappy" it was, and I'm not even sure what they were talking about, the speed of the interface, how fast menus appear or something.

But what you've failed to understand is that Apple Silicon was not supposed to be a giant leap forward in performance, it was a lateral move from Intel without losing performance, yet also gaining a lot of energy efficiency. Apple succeeded, and it is impressive.

That said, currently there are no computer hardware manufacturers that can compete with Apple Silicon, and that is any platform, Intel, AMD or ARM. You can find a faster processor in the works, but when finally available that power will be at the expense of a shitton of energy consumption. Right now, nothing is available for computer consumers that can beat Apple Silicon.

LOL You know what makes your comment hilarious? You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're completely wrong. Yes, there was an art style. Prior to 2010, there certainly were films with a washed out look or sepia feel, such as Oh, Brother Where Art Thou?, 2001. But when the new digital RAW format 4K professional video camera was released in 2007, followed by the 6K and 8K versions, no one could figure out why the footage was washed out. That's just the nature of RAW, and post-production didn't understand digital color timing or color correction. Beginning in 2010, there is a long series of national film and TV releases leading up to today that just used the color-uncorrected footage because, without understanding, they had no choice. X-Art releases are just one example, but the most notorious example is Shutter Island, 2010, so even major releases with top tier actors and directors were having the problem and hiding it with "artistic choice." Another is Drive, 2011, which has wonky colors and can't decide between sepia and saturated colors. Every time another studio switches to the RAW format, you see them release a bunch of "artist choice" releases. But that's bullshit. Google "RAW video format washed out." Everyone seems to have the problem when they are first introduced to RAW. After 13 years I would have expected X-Art to figure it out, but they never figured out digital color timing and color correction of their RAW footage, and all their release show no post-production.

I hate X-Art and everything that's washed-out pretentiously professing to be artsy when the problem is they obviously don't know how to use RAW format HD video cameras.

Rosetta 2 does not support x86, only x86_64, and it only translates Intel binaries to native. Emulating hardware is very complex and slow because there is a lot overhead in emulating storage devices, console output devices, ethernet devices, keyboards, and the entire CPU. Rosetta 2 can not ever support kernel extensions or vector processor calls because Rosetta 2 is not emulating an Intel processor. , it merely translates code. It is not trivial nor even possible to emulate hardware at native processor performance. No one has ever done it, and no one ever will. So I am sure we all eagerly await the release of your trivially implemented native hardware performant machine emulator.

How is this different from any other platform? Done much ARM or PPC emulation on x86? Your iisue is with emulation, not Apple's M1.

False. You absolute *can* run Intel-based OS on M1 (and apparently you already are if you're emulating an Intel processor), just like you can run ARM-based OS on Intel, but in each case the non-native processor must be emulated, but no one anywhere ever expects emulated processors to perform at native processor speeds. And if you're running Windows 11 ARM on M1 there is no need to emulate anything, and others are reporting decent performance. Since you believe you are emulating, even as you deny emulation on M1, there's a great chance you're running the Intel version of Windows 11 in an emulator like qemu instead of Windows 11 ARM in a virtual machine like Parallels.

First of all, you seem to be confused about the difference between virtualization and emulation. Virtualization runs platform-native OS on the platform-native processor at full processor speeds. Emulation, on the other hand, reproduces the function of one platform on a different platform. Operating systems are virtualized, while hardware processors or, separately, application software are emulated. Until Rosetta and Rosetta 2, emulators have always run non-native software slower that native software and for good reason. Apple is not keeping anything from you, and there is nothing to "open up." Rosetta 2 simply does not support virtualization. Rosetta 2 is not emulating a processor. Instead it is emulating Intel application software by recompiling Intel code for the M1 processor on the fly, which is why it so fast and why it will never support virtualization.