There can be and it's a really great idea! I currently use the CookieAutoDelete extension, and while I hate its shitty UI, it does what I want: unless I have whitelisted the domain, any cookies it offers get deleted a little while after closing the tab. So if I want long-term cookies for someone (e.g. slashdot.org, to stay logged-in all the time), I got 'em. If I don't go out of my way to whitelist a site, whatever cookies it sent, go away in a few minutes.

Web browsers ought to be able to do that out-of-the-box by now, as well as all the things uBlock Origin does, too.

Our web browsers kind of suck. At least Firefox has usable extensions, but these basic things should be totally mainstream and built-in by now. We've had decades to get this right, but I think the big browser teams have conflicts of interest over money (e.g. Google funding Firefox). Websites shouldn't be asking for consent; our browser preferences/settings ought to be handling that, with "consent" managed through the enforcement of our chosen personal policies.

People likely to succeed in managing a business will be low in trait agreeableness. This is well known and has been known for years.

Despite the apparent implication of "disagreeable" people being bad, it means that such people are more focused on themselves, unlikely to be swayed by the opinions of others, and more self serving. It's a trait that allows businesses to succeed, by having the owner focus on the success goals of the business instead of the success goals of other people.

Contrast with high agreeableness, where the person is more externally focused. Psychologists and nurses would typically be high agreeableness.

Everyone has an agreeableness score, and it's a bell curve. The fact that there are people who aren't "fair" is compensated by people who are exceptionally giving.

The Generative AI companies did their thing. It was overall very impressive, even if they massively overstated its usefulness. ChatGPT is a great early demo of this infantile, currently-almost-useless-but-very-promising tech! Now someone simply (heh) needs to get the compute requirements down two to four orders of magnitude.

If companies like OpenAI can (and want to) work on that, great! Or others can build on the work that's been done up to now. I don't think anyone will miss the current companies, though they might currently be employing people who likely have a leg up (thanks to their familiarity with the subject) on addressing the compute resources problem.

But whenever (if ever) it gets done, people are going to run it on their own machines, not your servers and jail. Lock-in has always been, and will always be, an adversarial force to be eliminated by progress. If that means OpenAI's long-term plans won't work out, well, too bad.

Can you use the hardware without any Meta services? Can you use competing hardware with Meta's services? And then beyond just services, can you fully replace the whole software stack?

Any "no"s above will make the utility dubious, such that there's little point in spending much time getting to know the product (except for RE purposes). OTOHs "yes"s will indicate that these types of wearables are starting to become viable.

I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.

I have owned or used several pieces of Panasonic video equipment back in the day. A compact VHS-C consumer camcorder and some full-sized pro S-VHS cameras and VCRs and editing equipment. I also owned a Panasonic Toughbook laptop (one of the W series semi-rugged ones) and a Panasonic Lumix pont-and-shoot camera.

It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.

So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.

From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.

An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.

Hereâ(TM)s the problem with that scenario: court rulings donâ(TM)t mean much in a state ruled by one party. China has plenty of progressive looking laws that donâ(TM)t get enforced if it is inconvenient to the party. There are emission standards for trucks and cars that should help with their pollution problems, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and officials have no interest in creating any if it would interfere with their economic targets or their private interests.

China is a country of strict rules and lax enforcement, which suits authoritarian rulers very well. It means laws are flouted routinely by virtually everyone, which gives the party leverage. Displease the party, and they have plenty of material to punish you, under color of enforcing laws. It sounds so benign, at least theyâ(TM)re enforcing the law part of the time, right? Wrong. Laws selectively enforced donâ(TM)t serve any public purpose; theyâ(TM)re just instruments of personal power.

Americans often donâ(TM)t seem to understand the difference between rule of law and rule *by* law. Itâ(TM)s ironic because the American Revolution and constitution were historically important in establishing the practicality of rule of law, in which political leaders were not only expected to obey the laws themselves, but had a duty to enforce the law impartially regardless of their personal opinions or interests.

Rule *by* law isnâ(TM)t a Chinese innovation, it was the operating principle for every government before 1789. A government that rules *by* law is only as good as the men wielding power, and since power corrupts, itâ(TM)s never very good for long.

Ban on tobacco products.

Yeah, let's make cigarettes cool again!

If you have induction, how do you feel about the sound of the range? I still have an ancient gas burner (though I did install a good ventilation fan), but when I've cooked on an induction stove elsewhere, it both made an annoying high-pitched squeal (think old CRTs but louder) and had fan noises kicking on and off. It annoyed the crap out of me.

I don't want to get another gas burner, and technologically induction does seem like the clear winner, but the noise thing is really throwing me off. What's your experience?

I think that after every 3rd wave of Missile Command (what a disgustingly irresponsible creation!!), the game should require that the player's parents check to make sure the player isn't getting depressed by the prospect of nuclear war.

And in Asteroids, after any ship destruction due to collision with an asteroid, the game should require parental attestation that the player isn't starting to develop symptoms of petraphobia.

In both cases, if the parents aren't available (e.g. dead because the player is in their 80s) I suppose a Notary Public or a AMA-certified doctor would be a good-enough replacement.

We have learned so much since the early days of computer games, and it's better to be safe than sorry. (But don't fuck with Joust! I want to be able to play without having to call my mom every time the Lava Troll touches my mount's legs inappropriately.)

Class 1 and 2 e-bikes limit assist to 20 mph, not 15. You can ride them faster than that, but you have to provide the power. 20 mph is well above what most recreational cyclists can maintain on a flat course, so if these classes arenâ(TM)t fast enough to be safe, neither is a regular bike. The performance is well within what is possible for a fit cyclist for short times , so their performance envelope is suitable for sharing bike and mixed use infrastructure like rail trails.

Class 3 bikes can assist riders to 28 mph. This is elite rider territory. There is no regulatory requirement ti equip the bike to handle those speeds safely, eg hydraulic brakes with adequate size rotors. E-bikes in this class are far more likely to pose injury risks to others. I think it makes a lot of sense to treat them as mopeds, requiring a drivers license for example.

Would treating them as mopeds be so bad?

What weâ(TM)re looking at is exactly what happened when gasoline cars started to become popular and created problems with deaths, injuries, and property damage. The answer to managing those problems and providing accountability was to make the vehicles display registration plates, require licensing of drivers, and enforcing minimum safety standards on cars. Iâ(TM)m not necessarily suggesting all these things should be done to e-bikes, but I donâ(TM)t see why they shouldnâ(TM)t be on the table.

I am a lifelong cyclist , over fifty years now, and in general I welcome e-bikes getting more people into light two wheel vehicles. But I see serious danger to both e-bike riders and the people around them. There are regulatory classes which limit the performance envelope of the vehicle, but class 3, allowing assist up to 28 mph, is far too powerful for a novice cyclist. Only the most athletic cyclists, like professional tour racers, can sustain speeds like that, but they have advanced bike handling skills and theyâ(TM)re doing it on bikes that weigh 1/5 of what complete novice novice e-bike riders are on. Plus the pros are on the best bikes money can buy. If you pay $1500 for an e-bike, youâ(TM)re getting about $1200 of battery and motor bolted onto $300 of bike.

Whatâ(TM)s worse, many e-bikes which have e-bike class stickers can be configured to ignore class performance restrictions, and you can have someone with no bike handling skills riding what in effect is an electric motorcycle with terrible brakes.

E-bike classification notwithstanding, thereâ(TM)s a continuum from electrified bicycles with performance roughly what is achievable by a casi recreational rider on one end, running all the way up to electric motorcycles. If there were only such a thing as a class 1 e-bike thereâ(TM)d be little need to build a regulatory system with registration and operator licensing. But you canâ(TM)t tell by glancing at a two wheel electric vehicle exactly where on the bike to motorcycle spectrum it falls; that depends on the motor specification and software settings. So as these things become more popular, I donâ(TM)t see any alternative to having a registration and inspection system for all of them, with regulatory categories and restrictions based on the weight and hardware performance limitations of the vehicle. Otherwise youâ(TM)ll have more of the worst case weâ(TM)re already seeing: preteen kids riding what are essentially electric motorcycles that weigh as much as they do because the parents think those things are âoebikesâ and therefore appropriate toys.

I haven't read the text of this Swiss law, but if it's anything like USA's, UK's, or EU's laws, then it regulates "providers" and/or "carriers," not software applications themselves.

If you are sending already-made ciphertext through a regulated service, the service won't be in trouble. But if the service offers to encrypt for you, then they will be in trouble.

It just occurred to me that the now-common conflation between web apps and local apps (to a lot of phone users, these two things look the same) matters.

Maybe ASF just likes whiskey.

White oak has more tyloses and a tighter grain structure than other oak varieties, which cause its barrels to be more waterproof. It chars better. And it generally wins most taste tests. It's just perfect for barrel aging.

Save your red oaks for furniture.