Well, you assume we don’t have that problem in engineering.

Huh? What?

I’m working on finished systems designed entirely in metric, only designed with metric hardware. Installed with that metric hardware. The only way SAE hardware finds its way inside is when US technicians, who work for customers and not for my company ram it in there. Engineers are not consulted when they do this.

For example, to prevent easy access, or to required a tool that we can provide because we want the acknowledgement that access gas been required.

We just use metric security screws for most applications. Everything is supposed to be physically accessible by technicians who are theoretically qualified. Sometimes though they just aren’t.

I’m not talking about the engineering side, I’m talking about an environment where some systems are metric and some are SAE, usually based on if they are US or European designed. In these environments, technicians who are sometimes not terribly well trained, who are doing daily work, will mix and match the wrong screws into the wrong systems.

It may just be “a” screw, but as I said it leads to these same people accidentally stripping them, which makes certain parts inaccessible until the stripped screw is removed. Which is a headache on top of whatever the actual headache reason is that I’m removing the screw in the first place. It’s extra yak shaving.

Anger does drive up engagement, but the point of engagement farming is supposed to be so that you keep coming back to the content (YT videos, articles, whatever) and therefore it gets more exposure so that the attached ads get more exposure.

The ads themselves designed to make you angry at them doesn’t seem to make sense, at least as a default practice. There’s really only hyperspecific niche scenarios where the ad itself making you angry at the ad is beneficial to the people paying for it.

That’s the craziest part isn’t it? All of this data collection so they can build profiles of us, and then they just don’t apply any of it to ads.

I don’t like watching ads, but it would at least be slightly more tolerable if I got ads for things I actually wanted. On my TV I watch YT unfortunately not adblocked, and never once have I seen an ad for anything that appeal to me.

I have no way to crop it that doesn’t have the background of where I live in view, so no cat pic here.

The first words of the article:

So this is interesting. Just weeks after Google’s campaign to promote Android as being more secure than iPhone, the smartphone battle has taken a sudden twist.

The rule is essentially hidden if what I think are innocuous images contain a some image violating TOS. Which image is in violation? Which section of the TOS is it violating? I have no idea, therefore no idea how to follow the rule in the future.

They are not legally binding

So they have no duty of care with user’s personal data or privacy.

I don’t recall making a legal complaint. Something can be legal but mildly infuriating.

I use a variety for different things. My point isn’t imgur specifically, but how these hidden rules exist on different sites.

A wrinkle to this case is that Federally marijuana is in the most restricted category. It’s above meth or cocaine.

Obviously a lot of people consider those drugs more harmful than marijuana, but if we are playing the legal game then marijuana is legislated as being more dangerous and that’s what the court has to work with.

SCOTUS I think has to decide if controlled substance use as a whole can prohibit legally buying a gun or not. I’m not sure if they can just make a carveout for marijuana. (Also the person taking the case up had cocaine too, so it can’t not be brought up.)

You’d be surprised how many 2A people, who are across the political spectrum, are fine with removing that category of prohibition entirely. However I wonder if it will make SCOTUS more hesitant to make such an “extreme” ruling.

A surprising amount of people don’t understand that if they live in a state where weed is legal that doesn’t mean Federal laws on it don’t apply.

The case is about overturning an existing restriction, not adding new ones.

This case is not about imposing new restrictions.

Weed is already prohibited. The case is about overturning that.

The case is about overturning existing prohibitions. Reading the article would clarify this.

I wish people would read the articles. Weed is already Federally prohibited. The case is an attempt to overturn that.

The case is not about implementing new gun control, but looking at if an aspect of existing control is unconstitutional.

The case in front of SCOTUS is not about implementing a new restriction. It is about if a long standing restriction on the unrelated use of controlled substances is a Constitutional violation. Weed is grabbing the headline, but the restriction applies to a vast range of substances.

complete lack of understanding of personal responsibility

I’ve done traditional DIY mold casting using ProCreate putty and found it suitable, if that material is in your budget. I have used a little bit of mineral oil inside the mold as a release agent. For me the most success has come from letting the material sit in the mold two or three times longer than you think it should take to be fully dry.