Just a smol with big opinions about AFVs and data science. The onlyfans link is a rickroll.
it’s wild they do that while you’re awake in an exam room
It’s a little hyperbolic to say, but the most dangerous part of a surgery really is the anesthesia. If you can do an operation without it it’s far, far better for the patient, even though it sucks to have to be conscious through it.
Not really sure how it’s relevant here?
I’m skeptical just because their email signature changes - I haven’t touched mine in years, so why does Prof. Kutaywa go from being first supervisor to just supervisor?
As I understand it it’s been the standard since 2.0 and continues to be the case, even for high-power systems. From personal experience of trying to make a USB-C USB killer for PD, it’s also just damned difficult to do. USB is an extremely resilient standard.
As much as it would be convenient, a plane simply does not have the electrical capacity to supply all passengers with high wattage USB outlets. Large numbers of high-capacity of lithium batteries are a solution, but are also a risk and given the recent number of fires caused by faulty Lithium battery packs, it’s unfortunate but reasonable for carriers to move to restrict them for the sake of passenger safety.
A USB transceiver is required to withstand a continuous short circuit of D+ and/or D- to VBUS, GND, other data line, or the cable shield at the connector, for a minimum of 24 hours without degradation
Shorts aren’t really a concern with decent hardware, but as far as I can tell that’s the problem with the power banks that are failing - they’re not decent hardware, so minor damage attached to a very energetic bag o’ chemistry results in (very occasional) fiery disaster.
You also did that, yes. However in the section I quoted, which I responded to with the above example, you criticized her and those like her for her word usage in general within this context.
But for Israel they spontaneously forget them.
No you criticized her for her word usage in general, please do not try and present this like I said you were criticizing her for what she said during the 12 day war. She used the same terms used by trump to emphasize what she was responding to - and then repeatedly clarified in the body of the statement what it actually was. That’s a completely reasonable choice to make.
It’s an example of her using the specific language you’re criticizing her for not using in reference to the US and Israel attacking Iran. How on earth does that “not apply anymore”? It’s literally the exact thing you said she doesn’t do.
If you’re that worried about it (and don’t have at least a passthrough charging cable), you can just turn your devices off and bring a book. I don’t know why you’d be worried about it killing your devices though, if a plane’s electrical system has failed so badly it’s going to fry things on the USB bus then you’ve got much bigger problems.
ICE pays way better and is much less dangerous, too! If you’re already morally bankrupt enough to be a CO, it’d be dumb not to take the offer…
That seems like it’s wholly up for interpretation - she calls it unlawful, then after several paragraphs outlining it’s fundemental immorality she points out that it’s illegal under US law. If you choose to interpret that as her saying it’s only illegal under US law I can’t stop you, but I think that’s a very unfair reading since she lays it out clearly as a war of aggression.
Did she say those exact words in this one statement? No. Has she condemned bombing iran as illegal in the past? yes.
She didn’t say the the exact phrase in this release, possibly because what you’re demanding was word-for-word already said by Mamdani in his condemnation. She describes it as illegal and repeatedly calls it a war, both in no uncertain terms, and has almost nailed the same phrase in the past the last time this happened.
She spends the first four paragraphs calling it out as immoral, and at the end includes that it’s also illegal. She isn’t undermining her point by calling on congress to limit executive authority for military action, the war would still be everything she described it as in the first four paragraphs.
She can’t call it an illegal war of aggression without calling it illegal.
They’re doing that too:
The concern driving this ban is primarily centered around defective units already in circulation, and the acceptance that they cannot realistically be certain about their ability to prevent manufacturers in other countries from shipping in more potentially defective units. Most modern airplanes I have seen have in-seat USB charging ports, which at least cuts down on the need some, and a few hours without a charged device is not going to end the lives of anyone traveling (especially since this rule has carve outs for medical devices, I’m told).
Except that’s not how that works - creating a healthy used resale market drives demand for the Pixel phones. I may not be giving them my money directly, but it’s still of huge monetary benefit to Google if I purchase one of their phones used. I like grapheneOS, I really do, but it’s inseparability from Google hardware is a serious problem.
No, not really. Substack is a blog hosting platform that pays it’s subscribers - including straight up nazis. While there may be individual substack blogs with journalistic value (although I have never personally seen one) the platform itself is a problem, and much as with twitter, it is perfectly reasonable for me to be skeptical of the people that choose to remain on it.
O…kay, you got any sources with even a shred of credibility? Because those are links to two random entertainers on youtube, a substack article (yay, nazi news platforms!) and an article that claims to have accessed epstein’s FedEx account but doesn’t provide even a screenshot as evidence.
Probably my Runescape account, just hit 21 years.