It seems like the USA's goal to bring chip manufacturing back into the country only targeted cutting-edge chips. Refocusing on building "old-gen" chips is quicker and more affordable. Drones don't need the latest tech. Most consumer goods don't. I believe Germany did this to some success.
Woodworking. Tables, chairs, etc. You typically a want a hardwood for these crafts. However, it you're going to make cheap stuff that won't last... pine is fine.
This is a common misconception usually spouted off by “elite” (aka beginning) woodworkers. Pine (white pine in particular) is a great material for woodworking. Much cheaper and more forgiving than harder species, takes stain well, and looks incredible when properly finished. If you think it won’t last, go look at pretty much any barn built over 100 years ago in the eastern US that is still standing. More often than not you’ll find thousands of board feet of old growth white pine inside. Similarly, many heirloom pieces from the same region and period are pine. They used what they had.
The problem is that you can't get old growth pine, you can only get construction grade pine anymore.
I've been woodworking for decades and would never use it for furniture. It moves way too much with the seasons (fine for barns where you can build large expansion joints, but not for my chair), and it doesn't take stain well unless you take additional steps to prepare it beforehand.
Also many/most barns used whatever wood they had available. In my area the insides are mostly cottonwood and the outside is oak.
That's not an argument to use pine. It's an argument to use whatever you have at hand.
It seems that bluesky will be the political left's version of twitter going forward. The same way truth social became a right-wing echo chamber from its inception. I see the world(the US in particular) drawing lines and further devolving online discourse in a time where what we need most is mutual understanding and respect.
I don't think think is entirely true, truth social was just MAGA echo-chamber, Bluesky has a much wider net - i see a lot of academia, tech, artists, environmentalists, a lot of small communities there - some have migrated completely over there
The elevator pitch for this service is indeed "X for leftists". This is why journalists are flocking to it, and speaking about it, despite it being totally irrelevant, just like X is.
I'd put it more like X but with open data, open APIs, and the ability to control your feed & collaboratively improve your experience with 3rd party feeds, moderations, and algorithms.
The left thing seems incredibly incidental. This feels like the first time the social networks are offering any serious tools for protection & shielding ourselves from wild content & algorithms, giving us the power to define our social network experience. The right could benefit just as much, build their own good experience. It would need to be built around something other than in your face razzing on people on the left though!
Agreed but all the CWD in US deer is making venison a risky proposition. What a world we’ve made, nothing is safe anymore. The fish are full of heavy metals, the animals full of prion diseases and the woods full of Lyme’s disease causing ticks.
Well the education system certainly needs attention and a refactoring. I don't think anyone can dispute that. The details of what the end goal looks like vary wildly based on who you talk to.
Manufactured outrage. Designed to entice clickbait farmers to spread the word. Gone are the days of blasting millions into a TV ad. No new age ad gets that attention anymore. Instead, the idea is to go viral.
What constitutional right to privacy from private parties? There’s no explicit constitutional right to privacy, and the constitution only binds the government.
Possibly the first amendment, "petition the government for redress of grievances". Privacy violation is not an explicitly enumerated grievance, but neither are most causes for civil litigation.
Also possibly not; it depends on the particulars and the judge.
You also have the right to litigate under common law, which does have a lot to do with the first amendment. Though granted, you are individually unlikely to prevail in that way. Like said, it depends on the particulars and the judge.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from. That clause is treated as the source of the right to access the civil litigation system; this is what "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" means. The right to sue the government itself doesn't meaningfully exist except as the government permits (sovereign immunity), and it was much later that this clause was read (IMO correctly but I'm just some dude) to cover non-litigation activities.
I think everyone has a sour taste left over from decades of half-baked laws written by politicians that don't understand the basics of the internet or technology in general.
With that said, I also don't understand the issues people are having with this.
I wonder how they deal with the (hopefully) constant abuse reports aimed at them from providers who are tired of their shady customers doing shady things from their IPs.
OK, I'll bite. How exactly are [US] domestic users of services supposed to prove they don't need to prove their identity?
EDIT: it reminds me of the Common Travel Area (between Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), which has some glorious inconsistencies. For instance that nationals of Ireland and the UK travelling between those two countries do not need a passport, except when you take an international flight and rock up at IE/UK border control it's fairly hard to prove you are a national who doesn't need to provide a passport without having ... a passport (or equivalent ID).
Have you travelled between the UK and Ireland? You most definitely do not need a passport and do not need "equivalent ID". You can travel (by boat) with a student card, driving license, photographic travel pass (ie over-60s pass, young person rail pass), or photographic id from your work.
The check is very much "don't stop walking but hold your ID-looking thing in your hand so a nonchalant man can glance at it". You would attract very little attention with someone else's UK or Irish driving license, a bit more if you decided to test the waters with a weird form of ID.
Children can travel with a birth certificate (no photo).
You need more than this to get on an aeroplane, but that also applies to domestic flights in the UK.
If you get the boat and show eg. a Romanian student card, they might ask you where your passport is, somewhat reasonably since you would have needed it to travel to the UK or to Ireland. They would accept an ID card probably and might let you in with legit looking non-government ID.
That's the sea border. You can cross the land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland without any form of ID at all, government-issued, photographic or otherwise. Lots of people do it every day by car or bus and it would not remotely occur to them to take ID with them.
So the Romanian student would have no problem travelling between London and Dublin without showing anything since they could get a boat Glasgow- Belfast and then get a bus to Dublin.
If this was your best example of governments lying and changing the rules, it's not a very good one (and is also kind of offensive to Irish and British people).
> You need more than this to get on an aeroplane, but that also applies to domestic flights in the UK.
Can you clarify what you mean by "more than this"?
I've travelled on many domestic flights within the UK, and ID is not routinely checked.
> If this was your best example of governments lying and changing the rules
Ouch.
The common travel area has its origins way back in 1923, the rules are clear, no-one is lying.
It's just that it's hard to prove you are entitled to its benefits without having an ID document with you that - if you're entitled - it says you don't have to have with you...
When did you last travel on a UK domestic flight? You definitely need government issued ID.
You are suggesting that having to show any photographic ID is the same as having to show a passport. That's obviously silly.
No one has to prove that "they are entitled to not show a passport" by showing British or Irish ID. This is a fantasy.
On the boat everyone, British, Irish or other, has to show ID of some kind. No one has to show a passport. At the land border no one has to show anything.
> When did you last travel on a UK domestic flight? You definitely need government issued ID
"a spokesperson for the CAA, said: “UK aviation security regulations do not require a passenger’s identity to be checked for security purposes prior to boarding a domestic flight, in the same way when travelling within the mainland on a train or bus. Any further requirement on behalf of the carrier to provide identification may be a condition of travel by the carrier itself.”"
You need government ID to get on a domestic flight in the UK. You also need government ID to get on a flight from the UK to Ireland.
As with the sea border and the land border, this completely invalidates your claim about what ID is required to travel between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
You don't appear to have travelled between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, ever, or to have flown domestically in the UK since 9/11. You stated above that "they do not check ID on UK domestic flights", not "the CAA does not require ID but all airlines do". The first statement is untrue. Not sure why you are making stuff up in support of an urban legend about the UK/Irish border.
Even if there was a difference between the ID required to board a flight from the UK to the RoI and the ID required to board a UK domestic flight (there isn't - both require govt ID, not necessarily a passport), the situation at the boat and at the land border completely disproves your original claim.
KYC stands for Know Your Customer, and is a core regulation in banking. So we can pivot off that and work through what a bank does to verify your identity.
I signed up for a Mercury bank account a few months back for my Delaware corporation without talking to anyone, so I'll use that as a template.
I can't remember the exact steps, but tl;dr submit a passport photo / driver's license photo and a photo I take in the app itself. If it was a not-US passport, then they'd dig into a full verification, not just a quick manual check of "is that face the same as the passport/license, is the passport/license ID # valid, and are the photos edited"
True, I guess I wouldn't call it invading privacy, that's sounds a bit overwrought to me. Then banks invade my privacy, the DMV invades my privacy, etc. There's always tradeoffs, I respect people's concern about them, and I wish there was a gentler to say it.
> Then banks invade my privacy, the DMV invades my privacy, etc.
That is a reasonable and factually accurate statement.
> There's always tradeoffs, I respect people's concern about them, and I wish there was a gentler to say it.
The tradeoff here is astonishingly bad. Studies have shown that AML/KYC have an effectiveness of less than a fraction of one percent. They continue to proliferate because their largest costs fall on the users rather than the companies, so they're the thing that large corporations suggest as a "solution" when they're being pressured to do something. Because people have the perception that it will do some good, even though that perception is inaccurate.
In reality what they do is provide a means to satisfy "something must be done" in a way that dumps the costs on marginalized users instead of politicians and corporations.
I had to look up what "effective" means in this context, found a couple crypto blogs using it as a talking point citing a 2011 UN study, the study says less than <1% of money laundering proceeds are confiscated worldwide, nothing about the laws. Money laundering is defined as an estimate of any money from illegal activity, including tax evasion.
AML laws are completely ineffective. People can write long papers about why, but the underlying reason is simple. Money is fungible.
If Alice is selling heroin to Bob and the government knows this, they don't need AML laws to arrest them. If they don't know this, even if all of the financial records were 100% transparent and tied to the name on their birth certificates, they still wouldn't know this, because Alice and Bob would just claim the payment is for software licensing or personal grooming services or whatever they want to make up, and neither the bank nor the government has any way to know otherwise until they independently prove the underlying crime. Worse, Alice and Bob don't even have to pay each other. Bob can just buy whatever Alice asks him to with his money and then give that to Alice in exchange for the contraband. Then there is no financial transaction linking them at all.
The entire concept of it simply doesn't work. It's all cost and no benefit.
So what else did they pull off your phone? Location data, personal photos, personal files, wifi connections near by, microphone data, ongoing location data?
You don't understand the issues me as a blind person has with it? OK I have to upload a government ID every time I want to use an internet service. That's stupid. It's also considered a general warrant, and I thought we did away with those long ago.
What laws are you talking about? The Internet has grown a lot that’s largely because we have smart politicians and strong institutions. I really think the regulation of the Internet has been amazingly good.
For example: CAN-SPAM. If I want to send emails to a list, I have to burn $90 of my scarce dollars every year just for a PO box for the address at the bottom on the off chance someone sends a letter to unsubscribe. Unless I want to put my home address in every email, which I don't, and no one should. Unsubscribe links and highly effective spam filters were already completely standard when the law was passed in 2003. It doesn't matter if the email you send doesn't actually require it because every mailing list provider requires it.
The point is the rules are daft. A sensible rule would require a functioning unsubscribe process in the email, which every piece of software would then automate as an unsubscribe link. The actual rule requires people to be able to unsubscribe via a postal mailing address, which is unreasonable and ridiculous.
I'm just saying, your earlier comment would have been better without the sentence: "Unsubscribe links and highly effective spam filters were already completely standard when the law was passed in 2003."
The person you're replying to is not the person you're quoting.
But also, the people with unsubscribe links now but not in 2002 would still commonly send their messages from a consistent address, making it easy to block them if you wanted to, and making even primitive spam filters highly effective against them. Meanwhile the people who randomize their from address to prevent this are the people who still don't have a functioning unsubscribe link.
I just heard about this software today. Seeing that it was a one time purchase, I almost got out my wallet right then and there. Making it a subscription model would immediately turn me off.
