I'm not sure what point you're making but there's nothing satirical about the second headline. The UK really did just legislate to decriminalise abortion up to the point of birth.
TLDR: not legalised in the wider sense that any doctors or institutions involved with the abortion can perform the abortion until arbitrary late, but DOES remove liability from the pregnant women. So in case her abortion is aided or abetted those people are still criminally liable, but if she does it on her own somehow, then it is in fact legalised by the recent change. So, it depends on the situation, and if the mother is the sole actor or not. If she is the sole actor, it seems abortion has been arbitrarily legalized according to kuerbels' link. This also makes it important that people like kuerbel disseminate such a correction: the platitude that all abortions are now legalized would send the wrong message / legal advice to any accomplices in the abortion, even if the mother can do this with impunity, if you aid or abet her in it you can be held liable!
> So in case her abortion is aided or abetted those people are still criminally liable, but if she does it on her own somehow, then it is in fact legalised by the recent change. So, it depends on the situation, and if the mother is the sole actor or not.
Wheter acting solo or with aid of others, the mother is no longer liable for criminal charges. Full Stop.
See, much better articles that address the actual ammended bill and passing into law rather than focussing on the confusion spread by various media sources.
This is a change that would have impacted a total of 20 woman in the entire 100 years of the 19th Century and almost the same number of woman from the last two decades.
I'm not famous, high-profile, or the billionaire founder of a controversial company, but I can easily imagine situations in which I'd be cautious of random strangers. Have you travelled much?
What I am saying is if you involve yourself in violence (and directly profiting from violence) you should not be allowed to act shocked when that same violence turns up on your doorstep
I’m not indifferent to either of them, but if you equate American tech executives with agents of the Iranian nuclear programme then I don’t care what you have to say on any subject ever
You might be too young to remember it but they said the same thing about North Korea.
When they actually got a nuke all it meant was that the US stopped threatening them, halted practicing manoeuvres in preparation for attack and generally just left them well alone.
Iran has probably realized by now that if they dont get a nuke the US and Israel and will keep slaughtering their schoolchildren.
Sometimes we're the brutal savages who need to be stopped, impossible though that is for some people who have more of "racial loyalty" mindset to comprehend.
Pretty much everyone thinks that violence is ok against certain people. You probably do too. The disagreements are about who violence is ok to use against.
I didn't say that violence is never okay in any circumstance. What I'm objecting to is cowards who couch their support for violence in mealy-mouthed caveats: "of COURSE i don't condone violence BUT ackshuaaaaally when you think about it isn't it _understandable_ that someone should _expect_ this kind of reaction blah blah blah blah blah..."
Just say that you think Sam Altman deserves it. You'll disgust me but at least I'd respect your honesty.
Take plants that can use enery from the sun 'freely'. Is it cheap for them? Not really when you look at the evolutionary battle between plant species. There is always another plant willing to take your place if you're inefficient, slow growing, not poisoning the ground around you, or some other trick to keep you alive.
Any means to keep energy cheap and abundant must be by force because it is not a natural order.
Not saying it shouldn't, I'm just saying it isn't. Housing should be free and taxes illegal but here we are. Some retard decides to go to war with Iran and it costs 30% more to tank your car, I'm not making the rules. Solar panels got 15% more expensive over night in my country too. What happens when they decide to mess around with China? They make 70% of batteries and panels.
I’m sceptical about this idea but, to give it full credit, it’s a custom piece of hardware that would presumably be more accurate than previous software-only attempts. Maybe it will actually work this time, idk, although I still don’t really see the point.
You’re getting a negative reaction from others but I share this feedback in good faith: I don’t understand what problem your product is supposed to solve.
Yeah I guess the cryptographic stuff sounds vaguely impressive although it’s been a long time since I had to think about cryptography in detail. But what is this _for_? I’m going to buy an expensive keyboard so that I can send messages to someone and they’ll know it’s really me – but it has to be someone who a) doesn’t trust me or any of our existing communication channels and b) cares enough to verify using this weird software? Oh and it’s important they know I sent it from a particular device out of the many I could be using?
Who is that person? What would I be sending them? What is the scenario where we would both need this?
Also the server can’t read the message but the decryption key is in the URL? So anyone with the URL can still read it? Then why even bother encrypting it?
Maybe this is one of those cases where I’m so far outside your target market that it was never supposed to make sense to me but I feel like I’m missing something here. Or maybe you need to work on your elevator pitch.
reply