The most basic way of knowing roughly where you are is by looking at your IP.

Depending on your ISP that may or may not be accurate down to the city level.

If you ever use public WiFi, this is usually even more exact. Same thing if you use 3/4g on your phone, it's usually quite accurate.

In addition to this, Reddit also looks at things such as what other communities you interact with. If you are normally interacting with say Los Angeles related subs, that is an indication that you live in the area.

The location request is really just your browser confirming your location, but they have lots of tools to find out roughly where you are, which is generally good enough.

To be fair to her, those things probably did not work while the software update was going.

Those are both digital functions in a Tesla, and unlike opening the door, they do not have mechanical overrides.

She wasn't stuck in her car. She could have opened the door at any points in time.

Either she is dumb as bricks, or she is pretending to be dumb as bricks for those tic toc views. I often find it difficult to tell which is which.

You don't have a vision.

"I wanna create a thing but good" is not a business idea.

If you don't actually have any idea how to achieve this, you have nothing.

So, a question that I have literally been thinking about for the last quarter century or so so nve I first use winamp...

Is the Llamas ass in this a reference to something (like a competitor or something) or is it just a funny phrase?

He's wrong. Yahweh was originally a Levantine god, and part of a much larger (and mixed) pantheon of God's, and became the national god of Israel and Judah.

He was indeed mostly seen as a war and weather god, and was worshipped in different ways of in different regions. Broadly, the Judeans were more extreme in their singular worship of Yahweh, while the Israelites were likely a bit more open to other gods. Neither region was monotheistic.

What he probably mixed up is when the religion became monotheistic, which was during the babylonian exile. Judeans was polytheists with a strong national god before it, but came back with a much stronger belief in monotheism, and that Yahweh wasn't just a god, but the only god. During this time Yahweh also took on many attributes loaned from other gods, including Babylonian.

Did you know that Lord of the Rings is edited too? There's no way a real elf could shoot arrows as fast as Legolas does.

What business is it of any regulatory body to mandate a reduction in security?

The strawmanning is strong in this one. You know perfectly well that the reason why this law exist isnt to "mandate a reduction in security". I also believe that you are intelligent enough to understand that the reason Apple is fighting this so hard has absolutely nothing to do with security either.

So, lets change your question to what this is actually about:

"What business is it to any regulatory body to mandate behaviour that promotes competition?"

And the answer to that one is that competition is good for the consumer, and a governments job is to improve things for its citizens.

If you work in security, and is unable to understand that new app stores would be optional - not mandatory - for users, that scares me.

Not out of the question is not the same thing as "we can't even begin speculating [...] if it's even possible".

We can of course say that anything that we have not actually done could be "potentially impossible", but it doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

Whether something can reasonably be speculated about doesn't depend on out ability to actually give final proof (in fact, if we could, we wouldn't need to speculate), but rather if we have some grounds to start reasoning from.

I see very little reason to believe that it's not possible. We may or may never succeed, but the best bet we have is that consciousness (however we define that) is created by nothing more than a biological machine.

If it can be done with neurons then it can at least theoretically be done with a computer.

Do you think your sister would agree?

If your sister wanted to date your friend, and you told your friend that he was not allowed to date her (and, he presumably accepted that) and your sister found out... Do you think she would accept the argument that you have not limited her dating rights, she can do whatever she want, you just say that her friend can't date her?

If the only practical difference is whether you are imposing your rules over someone to their face, or behind their back, I don't think there's a moral difference. Only real difference is that you are too scared to say it directly to them.

"are we cool [...]" is not the same thing as permission.

In general it's a good thing to ask for others thoughts and input on things, especially when it effects them as well.

Permission means a very specific thing though. Permission means that if your friend and sister ends up falling for each other, you have the right to tell them "no, I do not allow this".

There's a reason for why this wording is so important. There are billions of men in the world that do impose their "right of permission" on their sisters.

If you don't think that you have a right to tell your friend and sister that they are not allowed to date, then don't use the concept of permission. You are helping normalise these things.

That's a very strange way of looking at it. Imagine that turned around to you.

Your wife tells all your friends that they are no longer allowed to hang out with you. When you ask her "wtf!?", she says "what are you upset about? You can hang out with whom ever you want, these people are just not allowed to hang out with you. You are still free to do what you want!"

I mean that's what I'm saying. You are saying that your sister is not allowed to date your friend. That's what I've been saying all along.

Personally I find that attitude despicable, but at least now we agree on what we are saying.

No.. I don't think there is a difference, aside from the second case sounding like you are trying to hide the truth from your child?

Either way the point is the same, you are saying that your child is not allowed to go to their friends house, and that your child's friend is not allowed to bring your child home. Of course, as a parent both of these are fully your right.

I agree with that. But maybe we should in that case stop calling it "permission".

There are plenty of men that do feel that they have the right to dictate what their sisters does. It's not really something we should encourage by calling "having a chat" "permission".

So, if your sister wants to date your friends, but you tell your friend that he is not allowed to, what's the difference from you telling your sister that she's not allowed to?

Either way the outcome is the same. They are not "allowed" to date, because you said so.

Dating is very much a two person activity.

If your bro needs your permission so dare your sister, per definition that means that your sister needs your permission to date your bro.

Permission?

Damn, didn't realize we were in a world where our sisters need our permission for anything. I couldn't even imagine telling my sister that my approval is required for her to be date a friend of mine.

I am expect that you are talking avout carbon capture.

Plants get the majority of mass from the air. The carbon in the air is turned into the "body" of the plant. This works for any plant.

Problem is, that as we the cut those plants down, prepare them and eat them, a significant part of that carbon gets turned into carbon dioxide again (you breethe it out), and even more as our waste... Well waste away.

This is why trees are often considered the best for carbon capture. We don't cut them down and eat them. As long as the tree is not rotting or burning, the carbon stays inside of it.

Back to your point, bamboo is also a great carbon sink, but not if you rip them up and eat them while they are still tiny. They need to be allowed to grow inte large clusters, which either are left alone, or turned into other things that do not break down.

This all said, if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, eating plants instead of meat is generally a good thing. The actual carbon contained inside of the food is largely irrelevant, but the carbon it takes to make that food is very relevant, and making the same amount of calories in meat as in plants is many times more resource intensive, and cause many more times the carbon emissions.

I got really confused as well, but it actually made me look at Amazon, and as far as I can tell there is no "Jumpstart" brand, so it's clearly not an advertisement bot. Is this some form of meme or copypasta?

A lot of people have mentioned jumper cables, and I agree. But I would also add a battery jump starter.

Same idea, but you don't need to have another car around to help you.

At first I was sceptic to these things, but despite getting a fairly cheap one (like 40 bucks) it has successfully started multiple cars with completely flat batteries. The one I got also double as an emergency phone charger and (a really really crappy) flashlight.

So, based on the article you posted, what is the conclusion that I should draw?

If I tell someone that I got a raise at work, and now make 100k a year, they have no idea if that is a good raise or not. It could have been a raise from 50k to a 100k, or it could be a raise from 99 999, to 100 000, making it completely insignificant.

That is the first part. We have no idea what the old number used to be, so 50.4% tells us nothing about the change. Was it 87% before? Or 50.7%? Without this information it's a meaningless number.

Without knowing who they asked, it's also meaningless. Your argument is that it is not just twitter users being over dramatic, but we have no idea who have changed their opinion on this. Without knowing at a high level at least where these figures comes from, they are again pointless for your argument. It could mean anything from "We asked around the office" to "We made a randomised, controlled survey among 1 million consumers".

Ever heard that "9 out of 10 dentists prefer *insert any toothpaste brand*"? Without context, it's useless.

I have no idea who CARMA is. I would assume that their numbers are good, but the article that you linked brings absolutely no proof of anything what so ever, meaning that it does not successfully make the argument that you tried to make.

I don't have an agenda here. For all I know, this campaign could have been an absolute disaster for Apple. But the source that you provided provides no proof either way.

Haven't this been a thing they have been planing for like a decade or two? But keep stepping away from?

I believe that they already have real ads in their sports games, which i'm sort of fine with, as it at least fits the theme, but they seem to have written this idea off a few times before for other types of games.

Thinking about it though.. They may feel that things like load screen ads might be more possible now. They have already made their consumers more accepting of things like banners that advertise microtransactions and stuff. It's not a big leap from "Buy this skin" to "Buy Monster Energy drink!"