Outside of US territory.

See, within the US or when targeting Americans, the Constitution and other laws apply.

When the US kills non-citizens on foreign soil, there's no US law against it. That's because that's armed combat. (It might also be a covert operation, in which case whether it's legal is up to the country in which it took place. It's probably not legal.) Dealing with other countries killing your citizens within your borders has traditionally been dealt with through this thing called "war", and, more recently, through the UN and other international alliances.

This idea is not getting modded up enough.

You could charge a fortune, and people would happily pay it, to have old-timey carriages pulled by robotic animals in New York City. That just screams "shut up and take my money".

An Aeropress doesn't make espresso. It makes a good drink, and it does it decently well, but you're comparing different coffee beverages. (Could the beverage made by a $30 Aeropress satisfy many people just as well as espresso. Sure!)

Formica doesn't have anywhere near the mechanical and chemical properties of granite or other high-end countertops. If all you want is something that will hold up cutting boards and room-temperature objects, they do the same thing, yes. But a granite countertop is practically indestructible.

Because the depth-of-field effect generated by your eyes depends on the distance to the subject, which is largely flat in 3D movies. They can't add DoF blur because they don't know where your eye will focus. They can put the most-obvious object in focus and then the other objects will be blurred, but if you focus your eyes on them, they won't come in to focus, which is not how your eyes normally work. (The same is true in 2D movies, naturally, but there isn't the illusion of the ability to focus in those.) They can make all objects in focus (if they can light the scene enough to use a small enough aperture), but then you won't get the correct DoF blur generated by your eyes.

It hasn't been boiled, and it actually spoils pretty quickly, mostly with a combination of lactobacillus and enteric bacteria.

You know, your eyes have a substantial depth-of-field effect, too. You often don't notice, because your mental ability to pay attention to objects is tied pretty strongly to where your eyes are actually focusing, so anything you look at is in focus (because you focus on what you're looking at). However, you can really notice when you look at images that have deep DoF or, say, 3D movies (where they can't possibly get the DoF right).

He seems to be mixing some terms a little bit. Correcting distortion lowers sharpness -- though for any image displayed only at 1080p, it probably makes no difference. Correcting some other aberrations, like chromatic aberration (CA) lowers contrast (and sharpness). Higher sensitivity in a digital sensor lowers contrast a whole lot more, though. That, and poorly-controlled lens flare, usually the major driver of low-contrast images out of smartphones. If you take a picture in daylight, don't point it right at the sun, and have a clean lens, the picture comes out pretty good.

I don't have a good sense as to how good the smartphone lenses are now. But people are now making pancake lenses for interchangeable-lens cameras that are tiny and of very high quality. I suspect that it's not to hard to engineer good smartphone lenses, either.

The problem is that with such a small sensor, you need very bright lenses to get shallow depth of field or good low-light performance, and those are just plain hard to make.

I like my tech magazines and news digital. I like my Muscle & Fitness and Popular Science in print. It's personal preference really.

Why do you want to add a grammatical error to the Constitution? It's apparently hard enough to interpret as it is.

Depending on what you're using the money for, capital gains taxes may be zero. And 10% is worse than the index funds after fees -- this year.

Real security is very hard. But really, real [lots of things in programming] are very hard if you want them done right. It's certainly possible for a higher-level language to expose the capabilities necessary to do things right. But if they don't, then it's a bad situation.

10% wasn't better than the market last year. (It is, however, a very solid rate of return.)

Only if you've set that part of your stack to locked. Otherwise it could get paged out to disk. Thanks to the fun of timing on computers, the amount of actual time that passes between "receive [into memory]" and "zero out" is arbitrarily long.

I'm just going to link to a previous comment where I answered the same question.

TLDR: Languages aren't "written in" anything, and the language the compiler is written in has no bearing on the capabilities of the language it compiles. (We're all Turing complete here.)

For one, you need to be able to correlate your requests with the other party's responses in a way that is non-replayable (regardless of the encryption used).

The payload is of variable length so that heartbeats can be used for path MTU discovery.

Just because someone "sees no reason" for a design decision doesn't mean there is no reason.

The heartbeat spec isn't necessarily a great design, but it's by no means the problem. If you can't implement what is essentially ping that passes two variable length data fields, what hope do you have of being able to implement anything useful?