This seems like a situation where it's very hard to get excited about the idea that it's the regulator's problem. Did some Canadian fed technically have the authority to inspect? Quite possibly. Is there some sort of justification for even the cost of performing the inspection, much less any undesired knock-on effects of the notion that literally all vessels must be inspected no matter what, in a case like this? Seems harder to make that case.

There are a lot of situations where large portions of the public have no choice but to use products and services that they have no reasonable ability to be "informed" about. Either it's simply not possible if you aren't in a position to legally compel honesty from the vendor or it's a case where "informed" is PhD-level work in the area, or a combination of the two; but some rando's aggressively contrarian submarine that loudly and proudly skips all industry certifications and is available on boutique scale for very wealthy customers doesn't seem like one of those cases.

Removing section 230 protections isn't the fix. Once you start opening that door there's no closing it. It absolutely will be done unfairly. Algorithmically displaying content has legitimate uses. The question is, how do you regulate only the harmful ones? I like seeing what I'm looking for, so I want algorithmic content, I just don't want the algorithms to be designed to make me feel bad.

They aren't. There's a reservoir, a pump, and an injector, besides the SCR. But the SCR is already present, it's just a little different in systems with DEF.

That's for freezing conditions. There's a resistor in the reservoir, big whoop.

Cooled EGR is not an either-or to DEF. You can have both.

Indeed, it's extremely laughable to think that Muslims are all Democrats, when they are part of a conservative faith. It's exactly like believing that evangelical Christians are all Democrats.

Unfortunately, most people aren't going to take the step to figure out that their conservatism is just like the conservatism of the people rejecting them.

Whether you like it or not, social media is the new public square.

We can and should regulate how the creators of social media networks take advantage of their positions of authority and control. There is absolutely, positively, and in every other way no reason why we can not or should not do that. There is no principle under which a hands-off approach makes sense.

The gears of justice grind slowly. This is by design. When you go fast, you break things. And also, no. The state didn't make them do it.

Yes, you could. But that's not the case. They know and have known. We've talked about that here a bunch. They willfully conduct psychological experiments on users and monitor the impact.

That's why there's a case... no, wait, thousands of cases.

Facebook willfully psychologically manipulates people into vulnerable emotional states in order to increase engagement, they take advantage of that by knowingly spreading false information and have actually reduced the number of people they have working on reducing the false information and replaced them with automated systems which produce false positives which punish users who are conforming to their rules and standards, but seemingly do nothing to prevent actual violations.

NOx is solved with DEF. The problem is, DEF systems which don't suck aren't solved...

To get the full power out of InDesign takes a lot of learning, but it's still recognizable and comprehensible to someone who worked on Pagemaker on a classic mac. You do have to understand typesetting to understand how to use it, but if you don't, you also probably don't need it.

A thing that often gets missed is that a lot of Adobe's users are extremely non-technical. They did not learn how to use graphics software, or DTP software; they learned how to use Photoshop, or InDesign. My mother was not a stupid person, but she was basically allergic to technology, and yet she managed to transition from doing physical pasteup with hand-done separations to working on a Macintosh and using Illustrator and Pagemaker. (This was long ago enough that Aldus was still a thing, and the Macintosh was a IIci with 5MB and a 8*30 non-GC card to run the Mac Two-Page Mono display.) And while InDesign is not quite as easy to use as Aldus Pagemaker was, because it does more stuff now, it's still quite comprehensible. I've used it for some projects, and it was still easy enough.

I'm not interested in that guy's comment, but the common connection is that most of these SMR designs require more highly enriched fuel, which means everything bad about them is magnified.

Rockets are awesome, they are probably our best means of getting rid of billionaires. Just send their ass[es] to Mars.

I just hope someone good gets InDesign if Adobe explodes. It's my favorite DTP software by a wide margin. I also hope Acrobat just ceases to exist. It's trash.

Monaco isn't on the table any more since this whole pedofuhrer thing has stained this country. Russia might be, though I would prefer to avoid that as well. Too bad. Good thing I don't have kids!

I think most people assign most of the blame for the clownstroke problem to them, and only a portion to Microsoft. They claimed they weren't using eBPF on Windows like they do on Linux because it's not sufficiently mature on Windows. So far I haven't heard from anyone who really knows whether that's true.

On the other hand, Microsoft has always been terrible. Updating windows has always been hazardous. Even in good times it would often scramble itself and stop updating until you did some magic bullshit, usually involving the command line that Windows users so frequently like to mock Linux about. Both systems sometimes require going to a shell, the difference is that it isn't shit on Linux.

Unless they're completely bananas, they will sell a device intended to be your display. Whether they do or not, lots of other companies will sell displays for the vehicle. It's cheap enough to do some adapter plastics for an existing unit.