That being said, it apparently does not affect Mullvad apps on any platform other than iOS (Apple does not allow fixing it on iOS). I suspect other serious VPNs are also not vulnerable outside iOS, since it is prevented by simple leak prevention mechanism.
I use Firefox temporary containers. So not only are they deleted 5 mins after I close a tab, but different tabs don’t share cookies unless I explicitly allow it or the tabs are opened from one source (e.g. open link in new tab)
It does not seem available on mobile. On desktop, it is an extension called “Temporary Containers”. You may also want the official “Firefox Multi-Account Containers” for managing sites where you want to stay logged in.
There theoretically could be a situation where two people shoot at each other and both can claim self-defense, but it would be convoluted.
Self defense does not apply if a person legally provokes the attacker. Now legal provocation means committing a crime, not telling a yo mama joke. As an example, if I try to rob a bank and someone starts shooting at me, I can’t claim self defense because I provoked them by robbing a bank.
So in this case, depends on if the trespassing is a crime that would count as legal provocation. If not, delivery guy is allowed to return fire. And I hope every sane person agrees it is not a provocation or a crime.
Edit: So in this case, the only provocation could be trespassing, if parking in some ones driveway counted. Which it almost certainly does not as explained in replies to this comment. In addition, I am not sure trespassing would qualify as provocation, this may depend on state laws and the details of the trespass.
Edit 2: Just to make it even clearer, the answer is yes. I believe the delivery driver could legally return fire, but I am not a lawyer.
Rittenhouse is the reason I know about this. Again, legal actions do not ever count as provocation for purposes of self-defense law. So you can make yo mama jokes all you want and still defend yourself.
Also, a provocation from last week does not count. There are detailed rules as to when a provocation stops counting, it does not carry on for a lifetime.
You are confusing two different questions here. Whether someone is justified to shoot the robber in the bank and whether the robber is justified to defend themselves if they are attacked (fired upon).
Yes, it would have to be armed robbery to justify shooting at the robber, and even then that alone may not be enough. (IANAL, depends on state, it’s complicated)
On the other hand, even in an unarmed robbery, the robber does not have a claim of self-defense if they injure/kill a guard trying to stop them.
I was talking about whether the delivery driver was allowed to return fire, not if the homeowner was allowed to shoot them, which is somewhat unexpectedly not the same thing.
By the way, another interesting and unintuitive law is felony murder. Lets say you rob a bank with a permanent marker, pretending it is a gun. You obviously do not intend to harm anyone. However, lets say a cop shoots at you thinking it is a gun, misses you and kills a bystander behind you. You can go to jail for felony murder, because you created the dangerous situation by committing a felony (the bank robbery) and the bystander died as a result of that dangerous situation.
Absolutely no. Gaige Grosskreutz would not be able to claim self defense exactly for the reason I explained. You don’t get to claim self defense immediately after assaulting and battering someone. That counts as provocation.
That would be true even if Rittenhouse no longer had a claim of self defense (for example because Grosskreutz visibly stopped attacking), since as I wrote, those are two different things.
That being said, I don’t think he would have a valid self defense claim against Rittenhouse after running up to him with a gun and pointing it at him. But I am not sure on this one.
Yes, as I wrote earlier it is theoretically possible.
That being said, the subjective here is subjective perception (what you see, hear, …), not subjective evaluation of that perception. So IMO perceiving that someone shot someone else without seeing what preceded that absolutely does not give you the right to shoot immediately. Objectively evaluating that perception, it could be a murderer, or self defense, or an undercover cop. You do not have the justification to fire unless you see them threatening you, or someone who you actually perceived to not be a threat.
The way I see it, appearing threatening goes with carrying a gun. If you choose to carry, you need to be responsible for your appearance to the surrounding. As an example, aim a gun at a cop and it does not matter whether it is intentional, unintentional or even outside your control due to a medical condition. You will likely be turned into swiss cheese. It is your duty not to point your gun at people. The duty comes with the right to carry a gun. If you are unable to do so, maybe consider not carrying.
Also, I personally like how many European nations only allow concealed carry. This way, you don’t create tense and possibly dangerous situations unnecessarily. You only reveal your weapon when you intend to use it.
Finally, what is the alternative to subjective perception? Oh, the terrorists gun was not loaded. You had no way to know but you go to jail, because objectively he was not a threat? That does not make sense.
Both subjective and objective evaluation of your subjective perception is the current requirement and IMO the reasonable one.
Of course, there are always details that could be improved.
I use metric, so you tell me weight in kg and I imagine it in half the number of (2 liter) water bottles. Which I have a pretty good intuition for since I often carry anywhere between 1 and 12 at a time.
Of course if I had to suffer imperial, I would like analogies as well.
Archive.org may be soon loosing a copyright lawsuit that will put them out of business. Better not rely on one third party for something this important.
Still need to be careful. I once needed redundancy for simple web service for a hobby project. Set up 3 free websites on different hosting providers. Turns out all 3 were owned by the same company, running on the same servers so my service went down anyway.
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be “physical toxicity”?!
To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including ‘forever chemicals’.
If you went to eat unenriched uranium, you would die sooner (as in from smaller dose) from chemical poisoning than radiation damage (uranium is also chemically toxic). People not educated about the actual dangers of radiation tend to greatly over exaggerate its dangers.
Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.
For how long do you need to store toxic (by your weird definition I guess chemically toxic?) substances like lead?
Since they don’t have a half-life, until the heat death of the universe. So why does storage time only suddenly matter for nuclear waste?
Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you’re just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.
Nuclear energy killed fewer people per kilowatt generated than hydro, wind, gas, and coal. Its just people like you spreading misinformation.
Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be: youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I’m sure their employer/customer was happy.
Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.
Way better than your 1st article but still drives on assumed probabilities.
Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.
Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.
Since I expected you would scoff at the theoretical papers, here is a practical one. The reactors left behind waste that was buried since before humans existed, yet there are no signs of leakage or discernible signs of health issues caused by it. Now again, sure. We did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.
Given both theoretical and practical evidence, I would asses the dangers of sealed underground storage to be low.
If you’ll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you’ll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg…
Excellent, you brought articles with causality numbers yourself. Never mind that not many developing countries operate nuclear powerplant, maybe some countries dump their fuel there. Go ahead and multiply the casualties 5 times over. Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.
Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.
At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.
I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.
PS: Oh right, almost forgot.
This article is by psychologists. Relevance?
This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.
Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.
Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.
Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can’t even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.
Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.
Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.
Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?
Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:
What in the flying fuck are you talking about now. I was criticizing Germany taking offline already existing reactors, not saying to replace renewables with nuclear.
Your argument fell apart, can’t be always right. Move on. Stop embarrassing yourself.
unless of course you think the German army of 1933-1945 isn’t evil
You do realize you are the one implying the Nazi soldiers aren’t evil, because the individual soldiers were threatened into serving:
if you don’t dump this toxic sludge in the middle of this town, your children will starve (yes, this is a thing that really happened), material circumstances exist,
So are people who are threatened into evil evil themselves? Make up your mind.
Either way, it is not relevant for my argument.
The way a group of individuals pursuing their goals interact with each other is a law of nature just as much as radiation. We just call a specific type of such group a corporation, just like we call a specific arrangement of fissile material a nuclear fuel rod.
Sure, you can “make” a corporation not be greedy by for example turning it into a non-profit. But you can’t do it without making unintentional undesirable changes, namely stopping them from being efficient in creating value. Just like you can “make” a nuclear fuel rod less radioactive, but not without damaging its usefulness as fuel. Because you can’t change the laws of how individual actions in a group create a complex system.
How we organize, and interact as a society is completely and totally alien to those who lived but three generations before us, to claim it is a natural constant on the level of radioactive decay or exothermic reactions is beyond delusional.
It is your reading comprehension that is woefully lacking I am afraid. Repeatedly refusing to understand what I am saying in favor of your own interpretation. Let me try one last time to explain.
Imagine you have two particles interacting with each other through a collision. This is governed by Newtons laws. Add one more particle and it is the same. However, add 10^24 more particles and we are no longer talking about Newtons laws, but about laws of thermodynamics. In a sense, the laws of thermodynamics are not real, the particles are still governed by Newtons laws. They are just a result of statistical approximations, a human construct if you will. But you cannot change these laws, because they are the results of said Newtons laws.
In the same way, it is possible to change a Persons behavior, by modifying the environment the live in. This can include laws, law enforcement, taxes and many other things.
However, the behavior of a corporation is a statistical result of Persons comprising it. You can not change it in any other way than to change behavior of People. The (statistical) laws of how behavior of many individuals combine into a complex system, such as a corporation is what is unchangeable. These are the laws of nature.
Let us take your example of an army. What is an army? In a simplified view, it is an organization where individuals are armed, trained, organized into units with hierarchical structure in order to execute combat and other operations as ordered by national leadership. As a concept, the US army and the German army of said era have no meaningful difference in the form of organization they are.
The two meaningful differences are:
The orders the armies received
The individuals they were comprised of. Of course, some individuals such as high ranking officers have greater impact on the organization than foot soldiers, but they all do have impact. Their willingness to follow orders is what comprises the morality of the army.
So you can’t turn the evil army of Germany into the righteous army of the Allies by changing what an army is. You have to either replace the orders it follows or the individuals that comprise it or both.
You can also stop the German army from being evil by having it not arm its members with weapons and instead train with musical instruments, but what you have then is not an army, but a marching band.
Equally, a corporations behavior is partly dictated by the laws it operates under and whether and how the People comprising it follow said laws.
Novel attack against virtually all VPN apps neuters their entire purpose (arstechnica.com)
The Duration Time on this Cookie... (slrpnk.net)
Remember to use ad blockers and DNS filters ladies and gentlemen!...
Teen pizza delivery driver shot at multiple times after parking in the wrong driveway (www.nbcnews.com)
Interview with the victim....
Americans using anything but the metric system (sh.itjust.works)
The Palestine experience (files.catbox.moe)
Observe Israel definitely not being an Apartheid state.
Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal—and why it won’t go back (arstechnica.com)
93 Year Old Woman Arrested for Resisting Eviction (lemmy.world)
This is actually an older news story, and it does appear as though she recovered from this before her death....