ricecake

Information without context can create a different narrative than that same information with context.

You see this in racially biased crime reporting. Without context, you see that one demographic is disproportionately prone to being arrested and convicted of crimes. The conclusion being aimed for is the expected racist one.
With context, you see that criminality is roughly equally distributed, but that certain classes of crime are enforced with prison more often, that different demographics get disproportionately more attention from law enforcement, and that due to socioeconomic factors different demographics are more likely to inhabit income brackets where the likely types of crime are more likely to be harshly enforced.

Information without context can be misleading. If someone seems to care about the conclusion you take away more than some bit of context that makes that conclusion less forgone, thats a sign they might be pushing a narrative.

There is, unfortunately, a contrasting rhetorical trick where someone provides such an overwhelming amount of context that you cannot possibly handle all of it in a reasonable amount of time.

Exactly where the line is is unfortunately not something I think there's a simple answer for determining. I try to determine if it seems like the person is using the information to support their point, or if they're using it to drown out opposition.

Well, in this case it's among the people who really like him. So while people can be mad about two things, in this case I don't think the people being discussed are.

Sounds like it worked out in the end, given the circumstances.
Agree with the university dean who said that hospitals have a particular obligation to live up to expectations that they'll follow the law where ethically permissable.
Hospitals have no duty to keep a patient from seeing a prostitute, only to minimize harm from the potentially illegal or dangerous activity.
Sounds like everyone did the right thing.

They hinge on a few things.

First, the first amendment doesn't cover the irredeemably obscene , incitement to imminent lawless action, or things like slander and libel. Free speech isn't absolute.

Second, minors don't have the same first amendment rights as adults. There's a general agreement that there's some theoretical manner of content that isn't suitable for minors because they can't contextualize it correctly.

Third, despite the real and increasing threat to freedom of speech in the US, we still have enough protections that what we (correctly) angrily call "book bans" are not what the phrase conjurs in isolation.
It's typically the government refusing to endorse or provide the book for biased or political reasons. Bad, but not the government prohibition of speech that the phrase evokes.

Basically, they gain any traction at all because they're not banning a book, but asserting that the content of a book is too obscene to give to minors, and then trying to criminalize that.

It's preposterous in both principle and application, and particularly monstrous given how they're being used to target the most vulnerable people, but they're based off the legal grey area that's supposed to be filled in by well intentioned reasonable people because the law as written can't account for every possibility.

I think you attribute far more cleverness to them than they have. I don't think they care if we're concerned about their lack of morals or ideas. Why would they? All the information needed to know about that was publicly available before the election and it didn't matter. The people who would care already know, and the people who wouldn't... There's no reason to distract them. Not that it matters, since they won and we can't exactly change that.
I can assure you my snark here doesn't reduce the amount of other conversations I'm having elsewhere. I can hold opinions on multiple topics at once. ;)

I wouldn't put it past them to actually want this insanity. People said the same things about how talk of overturning Roe was just a distraction because it's a "settled matter" and doing it would be insanity.

Imagine if they're not actually playing 5 dimensional chess. Imagine if their platform is exactly what they say it is, and their dumb ideas are real. If they respond to claims they don't have any ideas by saying they have the best ideas, and to claims of immorality by calling them lies and calling the accuser a pedophile.

I think people want them to be more clever than they are, because it means that people got duped, rather than their surface level idiocy being super appealing to a lot of people.

They don't want to do that, those would both add solidly democratic senators, and likely permanently cost them the Senate.

Not like Canada and Greenland, which are notoriously conservative and would vote for Republicans consistently. Ignore the comparatively liberal policies, those aren't related. Quebec and Greenland in particular are just chomping at the bit to jump on Republican mainstays like adopting English as the one true and official language of the US.

I would lean towards no. I'm me. I don't consider the things that people seem to associate with their "inner child" to be exclusive to children, so I don't feel a tension between my desire to act responsibly and my sense of wonder, joy, and playfulness.

Age isn't a mask hiding the inner child, it's a toolkit that helps them appreciate and engage with those things. My childish delight at birds flitting about the bird feeder is only enhanced by being able to buy my own, keep them filled, and the ability to understand more about everything that goes on with them. I have the experience and faculties to answer questions I have, which only deepens my appreciation for the "common" wonders we see everywhere. Experiencing more of life and it's lows only makes the highs sweeter.

A child plus age and experience is an adult. You don't need to lose the happiness to get there.

You need to think about what a backdoor looks like for different devices, and different functions of that device. "Backdoor" generally means a way to bypass security measures, but that entails can vary wildly in different contexts. For some things you can know because you can check to see if the hardware is doing what's expected because the only meaningful backdoor would be local to the hardware.
For example, hardware based encryption systems can have their outputs compared against a trusted implementation of the same algorithm.

For cases where there isn't an objective source of truth for "proper functioning", or where complex inputs are accepted and either produce a simple answer (access granted/denied), or a complex behavior (logging login attempts and network calls are always expected) it can be harder to the point of impossibility to know that what's being done is correct.
This is also the case for bugs, so it can actually be unclear if something is a backdoor or an error.
"Any sufficiently hair brained programming error is indistinguishable from an attack by a nation state threat actor". (the goto fail bug is a great example of this. extremely dumb error every programmer has made, or a very well executed and sophisticated attack.

Ultimately, any system can be compromised by a sufficiently determined attacker. Security cannot be perfect, because at some point you need to trust someone.
The key is to decide how much you trust each system to handle whatever you need it to handle.
I trust my phone's manufacturer as much or more than I trust the network provider. If I'm doing something naughty the person I'm communicating with getting snagged leads to me via the network and their device without needing to compromise my hardware. I choose to focus on the weak link: the people I talk with who might be unable to properly conduct a criminal conspiracy, and getting them up to speed.

Oh God, do people do that? Shouldn't do that with any pan.

Toss a cup of water in the pan to deglaze it and scrape any crap up with your cooking tool. Dump the water in the sink and use some paper towels to wipe out any loose stuff.

This might be enough to clean it, but if not once it's cool clean as appropriate. If it's carbon or cast iron, reheat to cook off any water and wipe with a drop of oil you bring to smoking.

Inevitably leave on the stove until you need to use it next instead of putting it away properly.

Ah, true. That one's become so ingrained for cooking in general that I don't really think about it. Putpan on low/medium heat, toss in a bit of oil and let the heat get even then swirl the oil. Adjust heat to desired level and cook.

No, it doesn't. But people think it does and will get really vocal about it if you, god forbid, get it super gross and need to rinse it out with some soap and water.

That's why I specified that it was peer pressure, not necessity. :)

For your clothes dryer most definitely. Probably not great for the sheets either.