ricecake

What soap do you use to wash your chicken?

Washing the chicken doesn't fix the problem you're concerned with though. If it did you could wash the chicken and then just eat it raw.

The bacteria is inside the chicken, potentially, where you can't possibly remove it by washing. That's why you have to cook it.

Cooking kills the bacteria, and if you have to cook it then the only thing washing will do is spread any surface bacteria around to other surfaces and gives you wet chicken.

Sounds like you maybe learned about food preparation in a factory setting, which is different than in a kitchen setting.

Per USDA and CDC guidelines, you shouldn't wash poultry before cooking because you're more likely to spread any contamination, you're unlikely to remove contamination that's present since it's not like it just lives on top of the tissue, and it's already been washed during processing.

Obviously if you're the party doing the actual processing for distribution then things are different since you need to remove potential traces of feces, dirt or other surface contamination.

You'll have to be more specific about what "this field" is. Restaurant sanitation? Food safety? Chicken washing? Microbiology?

Whatever your degree, it's not the recommended practice.
https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Should-I-wash-chicken-or-other-poultry-before-cooking.

You render meat safe to eat by killing the bacteria with fire, commonly called "cooking it".

Adding to that, the trump ruling wouldn't block impeachment at all, since that removes the president from office rather than holding them personally liable. The ruling "only" held that the individual holding the office of the president is assumed, barring an argument to the contrary, to have immunity from individual criminal liability for actions they take as the president, not that the office as a whole is immune.

Full disclosure, I'm not at work for a few months so I am far off my crypto system design game. I'm usually pretty good though. :)

Rather than full SSL I was thinking something along the lines of an hmac. Because we can introduce the two devices to each other physically we don't need to worry too much about a full challenge response. It should be sufficient to send an hmac signed message with an always increasing counter to prevent replays.

Even if we went with challenge response, I think you could get acceptable battery life using symmetric algorithms instead of public key.

https://shop.ftsafe.us/collections/security-keys-ble/products/feitian-multipass-fido2-fido-u2f-usb-c-nfc-ble-security-key-k32

Bluetooth security fobs already exist that do far more than would be required for a car key, and they get a few months of battery life with typical daily usage.

Im not sure it would be to much to do. We already have Bluetooth beacons that can run for several years on a single small battery, reporting telemetry data every few seconds.
The key fob would only need to be active for a few moments a few times a day, so even if it was doing more work, it would be doing so much less frequently.
Depending on the ciphers chosen, they might be extremely energy efficient, since modern ones were often chosen as a standard with the requirement that they be able to be efficiently implemented in hardware.

Since we have the advantage of being able to be relatively certain that we can bring the car and the fob together, we don't really need full public key, just the ability to verify the key to the car. Establishing a shared secret between the two and then using simpler symmetric ciphers makes it a lot easier

Where have Democrats called Republicans "evil", or "the enemy within", or made allusions to having them arrested for political disagreement?

Also, I like how you dismiss a five star general and people who have actually worked with the man as biased, while also ignoring the whole "historians and political scientists who agree with them".

I stopped reading when you started assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you about trump must just be unfamiliar with his supporters and only reading biased news. Don't be an ass and assume you know the background of the person you're talking to.

As far as I can tell, you're a vocal centrist who won't believe someone has bad intentions just because they tell you what they are. Surrounding themselves with Christian nationalists and detailing their plan to do those things could just be for show, right?

You can pierce the corporate veil. "What lawyer approved it? Who was responsible for putting that message there?”.

The corporation might not be able to be punished, but the actual people who did the thing can be.

The corporate veil for legal action only makes sense for a limited number of things that are problematic for the company but no person could really be expected to have directly made the choice.

Do you actually know what a fascist is or do you think it's just a synonym for Nazi?

Harris has never advocated for the communal ownership of the means of production.
People who worked with her don't describe her as a communist.
There isn't serious debate about if she's actually a communist or if she just gets really close to the definition.

a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterised by a dictatorial leader, centralised autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy

Is that the definition of fascism, or trumps former chief of staff explaining why he thinks trump is a fascist?

I trust the former head of the joint chiefs of staff, Trump's former chief of staff, and any number of academics to know what fascism is than I trust you, a person who's worried about being uncivil to someone who wants to put people in camps.

Like, take a step back and think about what you're doing. You're saying it's insulting and wrong to call a far right populist leader who attempted a coup to stay in power, who has threatened to use the military to bring places that disagree with him into line, who calls his political opponents "the enemy from within" and who calls them evil and their criticism of him illegal a fascist. Even if you don't see how just that snippet of his behavior warrants the label, why on earth would you care if someone like that was insulted?

We were discussing how he could use his position for good. He could fucking fail at everything he tries to do and leave the country no better and no worse than it is today.
I'm not gonna sit here and jerk the guy off in the hope that he fails at fascism so hard that he somehow deports musk and enacts MAGA-care for all to spite Obama.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna175198

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/totally-illegal-trump-escalates-rhetoric-outlawing-political-dissent-c-rcna174280

https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/current/thought-leadership/2024/10/is-trump-a-fascist/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/dispatches/what-does-it-mean-that-donald-trump-is-a-fascist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_fascism

My eyes rolled so hard they literally flew out of my head and knocked a wall off the back of my house when I saw your example to justify "hundreds of billions of dollars of waste" was an opinion piece on the $500 toilet seat from 1986.
Spoiler alert: if you read the next few years of news it's revealed that those stories are almost uniformly exaggerations and misrepresentations driven by Reagan era people who wanted to starve the beast.

Political lies drummed up to justify cutting vital services under the pretenses of "fighting waste".

You can do whatever you want. I won't be caught dead cheering for a fascist who wants to rollback civil rights just to give him a fair shot in case he makes a prudent budget cut. Which he won't, because his platform has openly covered that they want to cut education, healthcare, and science.
But hey, at least you gave the fascists a fair shot despite their open plans for evil, right?

I can think of two billionaires that I'm tentatively okay with. One sold a software service for a dollar a year to a couple billion people, and the other is a musician with an extremely valuable musical portfolio and popular live shows.
The key part being that they almost entirely made their money by actually producing something themselves, not just leveraging money to make money or leeching off the work of others, and what they made actually provides value. $1 a year for communication services is a fair value, and the musician has easily provided more than a billion hours of enjoyment.

I can't think of anyone else that it seems reasonable to have that much money that actually has that much money.

and tasted normally

I agree we should eat the rich, but I'll also admit that it's a rare treat, so worth going all out on the seasoning and dining experience. At the least some fresh herbs and butter basted. :P

I'd cap it high enough so that you can obviously retire with a life of luxury, leave your children unquestionably provided for, and start a few odd businesses without realistically risking the previous points.
"Solving" you and your families material needs is sort of the endgame for wealth. The extra for random business ventures is because society actually benefits from people with safety nets taking risks to see if something makes money. It works better if we had a society wide safety net so failure doesn't kill you, but even a limited form still has a benefit.

Anything leftover shouldn't go to charity, it should go back to the society that helped them get the money in the first place. Charity is good, but it's ultimately a bandaid on social problems, and too often isn't distributed evenly or without condition to those who need it. Taxes and entitlement programs won't require a religious sermon to get food,

I want what's best for the country, specifically the people in it, and the world as a whole.
I hope that trump fails because his stated objectives are abhorrent to common decency, fiscal prudence, and functional governance.

What he calls waste I don't believe for a second is actually waste. He has done nothing to earn my trust in that or any other regard, and so I don't. Certainly not enough to trust them with something as broad as "waste", if the fools who think that any scientific research they don't see the point of is "waste" like so many of the examples have been.

Listening and judging a politician based on their words and actions isn't being "partisan". The electorate can't even be "partisan hacks", they're the one's whose interests and opinions are supposed to be being represented.

It's not up to the American people to live up to the expectations of politicians. It's literally a politicians entire job to live up to ours, and do things that benefit us. If the politicians goal is contrary to that end, I hope they fail.
I'm not gonna wish someone who wants to harm me, my family and my friends luck just so that they might not want to in the future. They need to earn my trust, not the other way around.

If they do nothing for four years and things remain exactly the same as today, I'll count that as a win. If they yell "psych!" and actually do something good I'll eat a hat.