I never received this survey and I fly Southwest specifically because I found their boarding process to be less of a hassle (for a single traveler who doesn’t care where they sit). The only way I could see this being beneficial is if they board people in order of assigned seat in such a way as to optimize time to seat, not the BS boarding that other airlines do to try and maximize price of fair, otherwise they will have lost the whole reason I like(d) tonfky them… Their simplier, no bs, boarding process.
P.S. I really don’t get people liking to pidgen hole themselves to a specific spot for any of these things, just makes it easier to inflate the prices later
They specifically did this because it incentivizes people to sit down fast. They can turn their planes around faster, and the planes spend more time in the air earning revenue. That’s what made it cheaper.
In five years Southwest is going to be just like the rest. Rip.
So this is something that I already have to deal with at the state and local level, in the form of building and fire codes. Most such codes are developed by standards organizations. Is it a little bullshit that these organizations are able to maintain copyright control over parts of the law? Yes, but also organizations like the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association generally do a very good job developing these documents, and the current state of affairs is such that these organizations and other like ANSI and ISO are de-facto part of the fabric of law in the specialized areas they write standards and tests for. Requiring their publications to be freely and publicly available will actually be an improvement on the current state of affairs, where much of their work is locked behind paywalls.
Yea, but I don’t think this is worth an article - it might be illuminative to secret service tactics or inform how campaign stands should be constructed but Trump was injured as a result of a gun shot. The article posing this question was probably completely unnecessary and was absolutely needlessly sensationalized.
I think it’s worthy of an article because I remember hearing initially, right after the shooting, that it wasn’t quite known if he was actually hit by a bullet or shrapnel. This tells me this is still the case and there hasn’t been a definitive answer given.
I wonder if the doctors who treated him know? Is it possible to determine based on the injury if it was a bullet vs shrapnel?
I don’t think so, unless they found a piece of glass in his ear. Word on the street is a teleprompter, but I don’t know if there’s even any evidence of that. Or of anything else being hit and becoming shrapnel. That would really be the way to tell.
Are there any actual pictures of the wound? Closest I’ve seen is an ear with blood on it, but none that show actual tissue damage.
[Tinfoil hat]As performative as the first pump n’ shit was, and as utterly devoid of morality as Trump is, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the assassination attempt was some sketchy shit like the gunman being paid to pop a few shots at a couple expendable cultists behind Trump, so that Trump could dive behind the podium where none of the cameras were pointed, pull a packet of red shit from his pocket and smash it onto his ear, then raise into his cheesey fucking first pump stance in the middle of a bunch of panicked security guards. …and backstab whatever deal was initially made with the gunman by just killing that loose end on the spot.[/Tinfoil hat]
^Theory completely debunked if anyone’s got a pic from that event that shows an actual chunk missing from his ear. A few folks have mentioned some of the articles included such pics, but so far I’ve come up empty - just pics of a 'blood’y ear at the event, and a bandaged ear after.
I saw reports right after the incident that a bullet hit Trump’s teleprompter and sent broken glass flying, a shard of of which hit Trump’s ear. No idea where this “info” came from if even now, the FBI says it doesn’t know. You’d think they’d have done enough forensics to find out by now, but whatever. Is there even a shattered teleprompter?
My favorite tinfoil hat theory is that one of the secret service members had a razor palmed, which they then used to slice his ear when they took him to ground. I’m not saying I believe that, of course, but it seems the most plausible to me.
I don’t get how the blood managed to streak all the way down his face so quickly but then appears to have stopped bleeding by the time this photo was taken. Blood follows gravity so if it was gushing enough to reach his chins during the few moments he was kneeling down behind the podium, why isn’t it now draining down toward his shoulder?
It is was probably transferred from his ear to chin/cheek by something like the floor, his hand or SS. That’d explain why there isn’t a trail and it appears blotchy.
My theory is that [Tinfoil hat] there was a ketchup packet lodged in the rolls of his neck from lunch that day, and it popped when he was startled by the gunshots. He was unaware that he lost the condiment there, and it was unintentional. He genuinely thought it was blood until it trickled into his mouth, after which he raised his fist in relief, yelling “Heinz Heinz Heinz” to the crowd. [/Tinfoil hat]
Boneless is a “cooking style?” No. It’s which bag of chicken I pull out of the freezer before I even turn the oven on. I’m not going to sous vide the fucking bones out of my wings.
If the restaurant is deboning wings to order, fine. I’ll accept that. But then that shit had better be on the menu so I know to be careful.
And many of them still do. It’s a weird useful idiot/political survival thing. He’s their useful idiot to get what they want… but they better play by the new rules, lest they get Penced.
Is this just “AI porn bill” because that’s the most common way of doing it these days? I should expect the product is what’s being sanctioned and not the method.
The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.
Thanks. So photorealistic paintings are still legal, although I suppose they’re not a big problem in practice. It’s still weird that the method of creation matters, although “any other technological means” is pretty broad. Are paintbrushes a technology? Does using a digital camera to photograph a painting count as creating a visual depiction?
I’m vaguely worried about the first-amendment implications.
I think it comes down to the last part - indistinguishable by a reasonable person as an authentic visual depiction. That’ll be up to courts to decide, but I think a painting would be pretty obviously not an authentic visual depiction.
…any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means….
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.