Abortion makes up ~3% of PP's services, it is not in any way an outsized profit center for PP, and no government funding goes toward abortion since their budget is specifically bifurcated to avoid it by federal law.

But none of the right wing news sources you follow reported those inconvenient facts, have they? Nor do they discuss where the other 97% of womens care will come from if PP is shut down. It's partisan political theater, and you fell for it.

So by late 2023, they'll release a chip matching the one released in early 2021. Meanwhile, Apple will have released the M3.

It's 280 characters now and was originally 140 characters, because that was the maximum number of characters allowed over a single SMS message.

Cloud vendors absolutely (and even pathologically) work toward optimizing their compute capacity to cost ratio with regard to hardware procurement and electricity/cooling requirements.

Any costs incurred by the provider are passed down to you. They all charge by compute capacity. (Also storage, but that's a different set of metrics.) If your program can do the task with smaller CPU capacity and less RAM, it costs less. Period.

AWS Lambda is charged by the number of requests (static between implementations) and milliseconds of duration to complete the task (absolutely dependent on differences between implementations). If your implementation in Python takes 30ms and your implementation in Rust takes 2ms, your bill will be substantially lower after ten million invocations. (Which also makes the curve more shallow, pushing strongly to the right in the graph where costs intersect between the cost curves of Lambda, containers, EC2 virtual instances, and dedicated hardware.)

You want an energy dashboard? Just check your monthly cloud bill. It's close enough that a dedicated energy graph would appear redundant.

Yes, the act of civil disobedience can be useful to highlight flaws in process or organization. I just can't believe the folks that think the harm mitigation put forth by GitHub and npm were unreasonable and infringing on the dev's "rights".

Both could be good things. The first is arguable, but the second is akin to self defense and unambiguously good. If the code change were actually malicious, I sure as hell want anyone to put the brakes on as soon as it's detected on their networks/storage devices.

Can you imagine if someone in ANY other field of engineering decided to willfully sabotage a part and folks got upset because he was giving the parts out for free? I'm actually all for civil disobedience when something is broken, but to question harm mitigation by folks who detected the harm because the guy had a "right" to ship broken/faulty parts?

Like making friction brakes on elevators and saying, "I just made the current batch not automatically arrest on free fall to prove a point."

This right here is why a lot of folks should not be called "software engineers". Far too many of you have no idea what "ethics" in the field entail.

If you provide free meals to folks then decide you don't want to do it anymore, that's your choice.

If you provide free meals to folks and then slip an emetic into the food, making folks sick, whole other bowl of wax.

The first is simply asserting autonomy. The second is a willfully malicious act. It pains me that so many folks can't tell the difference.

> Chinese Government only shoots people and makes the family of the dead to pay for the bullets used...

Whew! Glad the US doesn't have the death penalty. Glad it hasn't been letting COVID run rampant in prisons and denying prisoners access to basic disease prevention tools like masks "because tear gas wouldn't work as well." Or adequate amounts of soap "because fâ" them."

Good thing the US doesn't make poor people choose between pleading guilty to a crime they didn't commit or sitting in jail pretrial where they lose their job, housing, and/or custody of their children not to mention get exposed to COVID because their bail was set unreasonably high.

Thank goodness we don't live in China where they make the family pay for the bullet, because THAT would be inhumane compared to what's done in the US.

"When actress Belinda McClory auditioned for the role, she was going for only half the role - Switch's Matrix form.

"Warner Brothers made the decision to cut this and give Switch one form for both environments.

"Switch's presentation is deliberately androgynous to pay homage to their original concept."

https://matrix.fandom.com/wiki...

You get that the original "The Matrix" was explicitly an allegory for coming out as transgender, right? The Wachowskis have both spoken about this publicly.

The had a character called "Switch" who was originally going to be one gender in the real world and another in the Matrix. There was concern from the studio about how audiences at the time would take it though.

If you're upset the new one is woke, I've got really bad news for you.

Apparently you missed that the original "The Matrix" was a trans allegory about coming out. The character Switch was originally written to be one gender in the Matrix and another in the real world, but the Wachowskis were overruled by the studio.

Taking the red pill was meant to symbolize being mentally prepared to publicly make that gender transition from how you were born to how you actually feel, no matter how much pressure exists to conform. And how transitioning is not all rainbows and unicorns but still real and worth struggling for.

This was all public stated clearly by the Wachowskis. It's fairly obvious too since they... k'now... had gender transitions themselves.

So tell me. How does it feel to have one of your favorite movies actually be about accepting that you're trans?

You think every BLM supporter was at every protest? That's not how any of this works.

Let me know when a left wing group tries to kill or kidnap members of Congress (or a governor) so that their losing candidate can have the reigns of government handed back to them.

Until then, keep you false equivalency hands to yourself.

On the one hand you have cars set on fire.

On the other you have public gallows, seeking to kid/kidnap elected officials, beating police, stopping the peaceful transfer of power after an election, and all while flying the Virginia Regiment Battle Flag and banners of the guy that lost.

Howsoever will we ever tell those two scenarios apart?

Hypothetical: you go out drinking with coworkers at a new job. One of those coworkers declines to drink. You say, "Oh c'mon. Just one drink."

You don't pay attention much beyond that. A couple of days later you hear they're in the hospital. Liver failure. Turns out they were a recovering alcoholic, and your prompting led to the straw that broke the camel's back. But as it turns out, you're a genetic match despite not being related. What luck!

No other known matches in the area. You only just met them. Not even sure you like them. But I f you don't submit to a liver donation, they die.

Doesn't matter if you don't like them. Doesn't matter your only involvement with them was under pleasurable circumstances for only a few minutes. Doesn't matter if you yourself were drunk. Doesn't matter if all the hospitals are full of Covid patients.

You go under the knife by choice or folks will take it forcefully.

Except they can't force you. Whether you played a material part in the situation is not relevant. Doesn't matter they are 100% dependent upon you for survival. It's a legal principle called "bodily autonomy". Morally it may be questionable to others, but you are under no legal obligation to get a section of your liver removed even though it is highly likely you would suffer no long term consequences. (Though any surgery has its risks, and you have a non-zero chance of dying on the table.)

The difference here is that pregnancy and childbirth is *riskier* and more straining than donating a section of liver.

But according to you bodily autonomy shouldn't apply in you were born female and are between the approximate ages of 12 and 50.

Her circumstances, her wishes, her health status, etc. don't matter. Because it upsets your feels. Bodily autonomy doesn't apply to them for...reasons. This old book says so, and even though we have this thing called "freedom of religion," your book trumps all (even though the book doesn't even mention abortion being a sin or an unborn child being a person).

So which is it? Should everyone be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, some liver, or a kidney because lives are dependent upon them doing so? Or does bodily autonomy apply to every equally?

Choose carefully.

Did Clinton concede? Yes.
Did Abrams concede? Yes.
Did Schiff try to stop Congress from certifying the transfer of power January 2017? No.
Was Hunter Biden running for public office? No.

Did Trump concede? No.
Did Trump push Pence to avoid certifying the results of the 2020 election? Yes.
Did Trump lead a rally denying the results of the 2020 election that led to an attempted coup at the Capital? Yes.
Did some Republican members of Congress lead people on a "tour" of the Capital in the days prior to Jan 6 despite public tours being cancelled due to Covid? Yes.
Were some of those people participate in the insurrection of Jan 6? Yes.
Have elected Republicans denied the seriousness of the attempted coup of Jan 6, calling the rioters "merely tourists" and nonviolent? Yes, constantly.

Your false equivalency is unbecoming of someone who still purports to believe in the principles of the American republic.