This is Rust. You don’t need a safe word - safe is the default. You need an unsafe
word instead.
This is Rust. You don’t need a safe word - safe is the default. You need an unsafe
word instead.
What do you mean by “improving”? This alarming warning appears because Firefox requires permissions. Let us look at the permissions listed there:
App permissions should not be about “this app cannot be trusted because it asks for scary scary permissions”. They should be about “take a look at the list of permissions the app requests and determine whether or not it make sense for such an app to need such permissions”.
Nearly every app should have a warning
No. If you put a warning on every app (except for the most trivial ones that don’t actually do anything useful) then the warnings mean nothing. The become something more than ass-covering legal(ish) BS.
\cdot
master race. \times
users should just use Microsoft Word (unless it’s for a Cartesian product or for cross product, of course)
Missing in the picture: a second track with no one tied on it.
Travel is never a matter of money but of bidet.
I’ll start using it after I migrate to Wayland.
Do you have a cropped tattoo? Can we see it?
I only use homeopathic placebos.
I initially read that as medieval management and now I cannot read it any other way.
There is no need to actually bribe researchers. IT is much more effective to find some that happen to already be in your favor and boost their signal.
Say that out of 100 scientists of the relevant field, 90 think your product is toxic, two think your product is perfectly safe, and the remaining eight think that the evidence is not strong and/or significant enough to determine the product’s danger. Because as much as we’ve wished science to be clear-cut and deterministic, and as much as the scientific method tries to root it out, human’s opinions and prejudices will always have some effect. Maybe after many decades science will reach a (near) 100% consensus - but your product is still new, so disagreement can still be found.
You can try to bribe these 98 scientists to say that your product is safe, but that’s a risky move because even if a handful of them has some conscious they can go public with it and you’ll have to deal with bad PR. So instead, you reach out to the two scientists that already think that it is safe. You fund their research, so that they can publish more papers. You send them to conferences all around the world, so that they can talk to other scientists and to journalists and spread their opinion on your product. You get your marketing/PR/social media teams to increase the reach of their publications.
These two scientists are not being “pressured” - they can still honestly claim that their belief in your product is not a result of the money you spend on them, and that will be true. The thing that is a result of the money you spend on them is their impact. These 90 scientists that warn against your product can’t conduct as many researches, because they need to find funding for these researches themselves. They can’t go to as many conferences, because they don’t have anyone working their connections to get them invited (and to pay for their flight tickets). They don’t have professional promoters advertising their findings.
So even though only two scientists support you while 90 oppose you, these two scientists have - thanks to your money - more impact on the public opinion than these 90.
All without any scientist having to utter a single lie.
Hey, at least it’s not ads?
Not sure I’d chose to use the word “sweet” here…
No, this was written by NS.
There is a world of difference between “seems pretty clear” and risking a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Swords clash with other swords. Swords were always gay.