That’s the actual wild part; using a simple (~$5) SOC to support a dynamic, remotely manageable, UI for an industrial appliance as in this case is reasonable. But dedicated a system per dispenser head is wild.
I guess it could possibly be deemed to be worth it for an ‘industrial’ application like this as it could reduce per-head downtime if just one fails. But man, that’s a lot of silicon for such a task.
Those clauses are unenforceable 99% of the time and nullify that version, and all future versions, of the contract. The only clauses like that that are considered enforceable are ones that cover very minor changes or those required due to changes in law.
Americans don’t even use it any more; it came before there was an international version so it’s kind of silly to treat it like some weird ‘america different’ thing.
Russia still uses their version, especially in the navy.
What about bbno$. Even he switches it up from time to time. Keeps you on your toes.
To add to this, it wasn’t just about looking good but the fact that, in later centuries, dueling scars most often came from academic fencing. So a dueling scar meant you went to university, and therefore a higher rung of society.
Am an admin, funny thing about conditional access, we use various conditions but one is geolocation; we bar all logins outside of three countries relevant to our workers. We employed it mostly due to a continuous low-threat brute force campaign targeting a few exposed accounts that my data analysis had identified. In testing it out from Red Team’s perspective I quickly realized that conditional access will indeed prevent a login outside of the whitelisted countries, but it will gladly let the attacker know that the reason the login failed was due to conditional access and not an incorrect username/password. So all Red Team has to do is brute force the password and then VPN over to our country of operation and they’re in.
Settlements can go undisclosed by agreement of the parties involved. Civil court is different from criminal; the former is for the benefit of interested parties, the latter is for the benefit of the public at large. Criminal courts can do some things behind closed doors as well but that usually requires a need of the state (such as protection of a judge, jury, state, etc.)
This is assuming a legal system similar to that in OPs post.
Well it is a cross walk, not a cross fly.
The only problem is that any answer can be followed up with “But why does x do/cause that?”, and any answer to that can in turn be followed by the same question.
People accept, the classical explanation, that mass attracts mass so gravity “makes sense”, but when it comes to magnets the explanation isn’t so natural-feeling so most want, or at least feel that there is, more of an explanation.
And when the only further explanation left is that it works that way because it does, people feel like the phenomena has gone unanswered.
4Chan doesn’t have their own personal payment processor that they’re responsible for. They’re tied into processors like stripe and accept all payments that make it to them on the US side. So long as it is legal, which is typically the only way that a payment actually goes through as processors refuse the obviously illegal cases like encompassing embargoes. If the UK doesn’t want payments going to 4chan through a processor that operates in their country, it’s on them to stop the payment processor on their end.
The UK knows this, the fines are just one step towards them petitioning processors.
Learn to read.
Not who you replied to, but: there is no legal, ethical, or moral, requirement for a business of one country to comply with the laws of another. If there was, all business would be beholden to the most overbearing government on any one subject. And just to specifically state it before it’s brought up, being tied into the international banking system doesn’t change that; if a state doesn’t want its citizenry doing business with a particular entity, it’s on them to stop it on their side or come to an agreement with the other’s government. Which does happen, especially with the conglomerate hegemony of components of the international banking system, but naturally that means that the only time any entity of a state is forced to comply with the laws of another is when their home-state demands it, which ultimately isn’t the laws of the other.
Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date; its perceived unreliability as to its correctness is largely a misunderstanding that arose from misconceptions as to why one can’t (or shouldn’t, depending on case) cite it in academia. People think that it can’t be cited because of its unreliability but in reality it’s simply because it’s a third hand source; i.e. a resource.
Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.
You might have some luck with a wm that can apply shaders.
Something like hyprland, wayfire, or compost could do the trick; and you’d be looking for a very diffuse (glsl) bloom shader with an exaggerated horizontal component or an additional scanline shader.
That’s obviously just reskinned domain/os. You thought you could fool us, but you haven’t got one over on me!
Martha Stewart wasn’t actually convicted for insider trading, the judge threw that charge (securities fraud) out saying that no competent juror could find her guilty of it.
I can’t remember if the true basis for dismissing the charge was lack of evidence or a judicial determination, but if it was the latter that’s pretty damning (that investigators didn’t have a case); as a determination of innocence presumes all evidence is factual, to a reasonable extent, and a determination of no crime having taken place does the same in concluding that the evidence describes no crime relating to the dismissed charge having taken place. A kind of legal non-sequitor.
That is one reason, yes.
Many modern buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes of some magnitude; this is what reasonable prevention means.
You can’t prevent any natural force unless your uncle knows god (and is on good terms with them). What was stated was the ‘reasonable prevention of damage’. insurance companies that sell earthquake insurance won’t insure buildings that are not up to code, which in turn is based on locally expected disasters, their expected commonality, their expected severity, and what is considered to be reasonable measures for the prevention of damage (or an excess of e.g. mitigation).
For example, where I live you can’t get hail insurance unless you have impact resistant shingles. I had and have exactly that so I got hail insurance; after a particularly bad hail storm (and 8 previous years of wear) I filed a claim and had my entire roof redone at my insurer’s expense. I was kind of surprised how straight forward the process was and the stark absence of bullshittery, but I may have just gotten lucky. The area I’m in gets a lot of hail so it may also be in the insurer’s best interesting not to get a name for denying for hail damage.
Which is spelled pieced but pronounced Lemmy. Everyone knows that.