thesmokingman

Damn this is a really weird way to learn a childhood basketball star died. RIP he was pretty rad IIRC.

This is actually true. Essentially a big drug manufacturer took down a scientist through a serious harassment campaign and blew him the fuck up when he finally snapped. In no large part to this coordinated glowup, published literature in the US agrees with the chemical manufacturer while it’s been banned in the EU for 20 years. The EPA might disagree with me that it’s true; the EPA and others funded in no small part by Syngenta refuse to look at things by Dr Hayes because he lost his cool a few times. Unfortunately Alex Jones further eroded the credibility of Dr Hayes but, imo, only because Syngenta actively deplatformed his research. Also Jones said some crazy shit about it.

You have answered nothing and read way more into the word “so” than was actually there. It’s pretty clear you’re just here to be mad so have fun with that!

So only art in museums is culturally significant? Made by artists who are dead? What about buildings? Religious places? Graveyards? Note that these are things I called out in my first comment so I’m not trying to move the goalposts here. You highlighted the Taliban destroying cultural places so, by your definition, we must include those and since we can’t displace any new ones must be added.

I completely disagree that the footprint of the world’s art museums is minuscule. Museums today already have problems with storage. In order to meet your definition for art, museums must continue to expand their collections. As the number of people grows, the number of artists grows, increasing the supply of art. How do you define “great artist” without proportionally increasing the number? As fields specialize, so too do the “great artists” that define mediums.

What about books? Records? Movies? How do we decide what to keep here?

• What defines “irreplaceable art” and why do we have a legal or moral obligation to protect it? Why does this allow for the private ownership of art?
• How much of the earth’s resources are we willing to dedicate to “culturally significant, irreplaceable things” such as buildings, artwork, graveyards, and civilizations? Who gets to decide what from modern times needs to be available in ten thousand years?

I come from a hoarding home where everything was important. My approach to preservation is colored through this lens. At some point we either exist solely to preserve artifacts created before us or we learn to let go. Not every Van Gogh or Picasso in a museum’s collection will be put on display and many museums struggle to maintain their hidden collections full of what curators would honestly call junk art of interest to only the most specialized of scholar. Assuming we only keep the “best” samples (that’s another debatable topic) there will be a point when we simply cannot collect any more art or culturally relevant things any more, similar to the eventual trade off between graves and arable land.

Hoarding aside, why are you not arguing to prosecute oil as hard as these folks? The number of indigenous cultural sites across the world destroyed by drilling astronomically outweighs the number of paintings with soup on them. Sure, we can prosecute both, but I don’t see you saying that either.

That’s fair! You can create an issue now with a branch in your repo as a proof of concept. Don’t wait to figure it out!

I am really curious tho and poking around myself.

I agree with comment OP; you haven’t solved the problem. The number of empty lines in a file that shouldn’t be parsed shouldn’t affect your code. If it is, then you need to stop parsing files that shouldn’t be parsed. For example, if this arbitrary file is being included (totally valid assumption given your debugging), what’s to prevent a malicious payload from being included or executed?

I genuinely have no idea how a random text file, much less a dot file, gets parsed in a PHP project. It feels like there’s no attempt at file validation which is really fucking important for server-side code.

This is a great example of why The Independent is a shit source. We have two reviews without a location linked that mention a couple of people walking out. We also don’t know the reasons why. Based on the movie timeline, the “extreme gore” hasn’t even started when the reviews mention walkouts. “Walkouts across the world” needs a bit more than two online comments. I fucking hate The Independent.

The movie is really good. I can definitely understand squeamish folks wanting to stay away. I closed my eyes a lot because I can’t handle the level of body horror in the movie. It’s really fucking good. Compared to the bullshit people tried last year with Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future, this is real body horror, not just a bunch of goths with body mods from central casting.

The Security Online article only cites Margitelli’s post on the matter. My assumption has been the article used the post as its single source. On one hand, watching MS fuck shit up for years, I want to believe Margitelli. On the other hand, researchers using weird tools and uninterested in reality are why curl is now a CNA.

I’m personally frustrated with Margitelli’s post because it’s all about abandoning responsible disclosure globally rather than naming and shaming (Canonical? Red Hat? Both? Others? If it affects all GNU/Linux I’d expect every single distro maintainer to be named and shamed). Responsible disclosure is our best solution to make sure innocent bystanders don’t get caught in the crossfire. When specific entities don’t abide by responsible disclosure we lambast those specific entities not the entire process built to keep users safe.

I think this was the best thing about Dredd (2012). It was just a one-shot or a short TPB as a movie, basically. It was a perfect Dredd story too.

Stephanie Pope said workers wouldn’t get anything better than the previous, rejected offer. I get what you’re trying to explain; that’s not the situation here and either way that’s the joke. Boeing corporate is being very disingenuous and clearly not negotiating in good faith. I’ve got another comment a bit ago on the article I linked calling out this exact situation.

If you’re going to get pedantic about what is science fiction and what’s not sci-fi, you need to first use consistent language and second decide how you interpret “sci-fi”. As an Ackerman purist, I’d call all of these sci-fi because they’re films and science fiction only consists of books.

I’d also contend you need to be very clear about your definition of science fiction. What, for example, do you think Sturgeon’s Killdozer! is? Is Dune also just fantasy? What about Book of the New Sun? How about dystopian fiction like Fahrenheit 451 or Hunger Games? There’s no space or aliens!