I agree, but at what cost? When the satellites burn up, they are likely worsening the hole in the ozone layer. And even if they don’t, they are probably contributing to Kessler syndrome, which could ruin low earth orbit for generations.
Sources:
Edit: formatting
Not exactly the same, but I find “plug” and “socket” or “jack” to be generally more useful terms since the definitions are based on function rather than similarity to genitalia. Plugs are usually male, but always. For example, computer power supplies typically have a male jack and a female plug. In those situations, I find it more meaningful to describe the part by whether it is fixed or moves rather than which way the prongs go.
It’s the right to bear arms, not the right to bare arms!
I usually say “semiweekly” to mean twice per week. I also say “semimonthly” to mean twice per month (24 times per year) as opposed to “biweekly” (26 times per year).
While “sociopathy” isn’t a scientific term, claiming that all autistic people are sociopaths is a harmful false equivalence. Associating autism with the stigma of sociopathy based on your own definition doesn’t hold up. Your sources confirm that “sociopathy” isn’t scientific but don’t support your claim about autism.
ASD and ASPD are distinct conditions, and the colloquial use of “sociopath” generally refers to traits associated with ASPD, not autism. Language evolves over time—consider how “literally” now also means “figuratively” due to ironic use, or how “antisemitism” specifically refers to discrimination against Jews, despite its broader etymological roots. Similarly, “sociopath” today typically refers to ASPD-related traits, not just any “social illness.”
The person you’re responding to provided reputable sources disputing your definition, while your own sources lack expertise in psychology or linguistics. In fact, your third source even contradicts your argument; the article cites a contemporary psychologist who directly contrasts psychopaths with autistic children, highlighting the differences between the two conditions. If you’re calling others “pseudoscientists,” it’s important to evaluate your sources more carefully.
People aren’t downvoting the idea that “sociopathy is nothing to be ashamed of”—that’s a valid point. But instead of playing word games, you could focus on that truth directly.
I am curious how either unit would earn revenue as an independent company.
Will Android get to keep the Play Store? Does that include media? Do they charge Google to distribute the Maps app?
Will Google pay Chrome to stay the default search engine? Maybe Chrome can charge schools and libraries for ChromeOS updates?
Would be great if we could just take off all of August like Europe does.
Adding onto what TheMrDrProf said: basically LetsEncrypt just wants to know you actually control the domain you’re using to get the certificate. With HTTP challenges, your domain has to resolve to a working HTTP server. With DNS challenges, you need API access to your DNS provider so that Certbot can set a temporary record that proves ownership.
If you’re using NPM to manage your certs, then as TheMrDrProf said as long as the HTTP request from LetsEncrypt can make it to your NPM through the VPS proxy, you should be able to pass the challenge and get a certificate. The IP address of the domain doesn’t really matter as long as the request makes it all the way to the challenge HTTP server, which in this case is NPM.
In NPM, you should see “Use a DNS challenge” option. If you use that and your DNS Provider is supported (if not, I recommend Cloudflare), then your VPS proxy does not even need to be working in order to renew certificates. This has a few advantages such as being able to shut off unencrypted traffic on port 80 completely.
For added security, you can make sure the proxy on the VPS only routes traffic for the correct domain using SNI. That way if someone hits your IP randomly, it only goes to your home server if the correct domain name was requested as well.
What you’re doing makes sense to me. Good luck!
Oh thank you for pointing out rule 5. I missed that one. Regarding rule 2, perhaps change the word ordering to put “reliable” first?
I think it would be nice to have a rule that reminds people to post for a global audience. This community tends toward news that is only relevant to people in the United States. I believe that having active moderation effort to encourage more non-US-centric content would be good for the community.
For rule 2, I would suggest two changes:
My guess is the purpose of rule #2 is to prevent opinion pieces and misinformation from being published as “news”. If the goal is to limit opinion articles presented as “news”, then perhaps the rule should instead clarify A) whether opinion pieces are allowed (and how that is defined) and B) if they are allowed whether they should be marked as such.
If the goal of rule #2 is to achieve some sort of “political neutrality”, I would challenge whether that should be a goal. This community has an inherent political bias that manifests in which articles people share and how they upvote or downvote. I don’t think that removing sources on the basis of political affiliation per se minimizes harm, and I strongly prefer a focus on removing posts that contain verifiable inaccuracies. Of course, it will ultimately be up to the moderation team to decide what actually constitutes misinformation (and there is bias there too), but I hope that shifting the focus toward that goal explicitly will mean that they will more carefully consider their own biases when exercising the moderation power.
Edit: typo
The AT protocol that Bluesky runs on is designed to address this specific limitation of ActivityPub.
I use different types, cultivars, or alternative names for potatoes. Device names over the years have included: russet, yukon gold, ranger, marispiper, vivaldi, ratte, snowden, spud, and tater.
Sure, but that’s just Starlink. G60 was just launched at 1200 km, which will take thousands of years. OneWeb is at a similar altitude. Both are currently much smaller in scale, of course, but still potential problems. Not to mention the impact all three systems are having on astronomy.
For Starlink, I’m much more concerned about the aluminum oxide pollution. I linked the study in my earlier comment, but this magazine article does a better lay explanation: https://universemagazine.com/en/starlink-destroys-the-ozone-layer-that-would-recover-by-2066/ The worst part for me is that we might not actually see the bulk of the effects until 30 years from now when the aluminum from hundreds of tons of burnt up satellites descends into the stratosphere where 90% of our ozone is.