Best I can do is three fiddy :/

Accidental means you didn’t have consent.

Dude… at this point you’re just looking for something to be triggered by. If I open the kitchen door and it hits my SO standing on the other side, that’s not domestic violence, it’s an accident. If my hand gets caught in her hair while we’re messing around that’s not non-consensual hair pulling and sexual assault, it’s an accident.

When accidents happen, you apologise, accept the apology, and keep having fun together.

I’ve found myself sitting alone in my car in an abandoned parking lot just listening to some music and wondering what I’m doing with my life. The strange thing is that, by all objective measures, I have a really good life. I have an SO that I love more than anything in the world, and which is fantastic to me, I have parents and siblings that I have great relationships to, I have a job that I really enjoy, and I have good friends. Despite all that, I sometimes get this need to just “disappear” for a little while and isolate myself while listening to sad music. I don’t really enjoy it either, it’s more like some kind of cathartic feeling, like theres some kind of sadness in me that occasionally just wells up and needs to be given some space. It’s quite rare (maybe once a year or something on that order), but it does happen. It’s actually really nice to see that this is something relatable - I’ve never really spoken to anybody about it.

Awake people can preemptively consent to being woken up however they like. Source: I have actively requested and enjoyed being woken up like this.

Not an edit: I REALLY hate it when other people try to tell me what I can and cannot consent to, so this personally grinds my gears.

I agree that “RTFM” can be insensitive, and even mean. However, the place it comes from is genuine. It’s nobodies job to tell you exactly what page to look at. If you’ve dug through the docs and still can’t find your answer, make it explicit that you’ve searched the manual, and perhaps be explicit about parts you don’t quite understand.

The whole “RTFM” thing was born from people asking for help when they obviously hadn’t made a proper try themselves first.

They go through the same hole as the mouth in the end, though.

Yes, but they’re distinct openings, which means we’re not topologically equivalent to a doughnut when you take them into account. Topological equivalence implies that you can transform one object into another without changing the number of openings. Classic example is a doughnut and a coffee mug (the handle of a coffee mug is the opening). A human would be equivalent to a doughnut with two holes poked through the side into the middle.

Two more out the nose

I was surprised to see all the nordics abstaining from voting (really, almost all of Europe). I would say that abstaining is a long-shot from voting “no”, especially if you see it as overwhelmingly likely that this will go through without your vote. Voting no is explicitly stating that you’re against the formulation, while voting yes is saying that you’re explicitly for it. Abstaining can indicate that you are (for example) for the intent, but have reservations about the specific wording. In that case, you may not want to stop the declaration from going through, but still want to signal that you have reservations and don’t want to unequivocally support it.

Any political party has a variety of “factions” that have different opinions on different topics. The kind of system you’re seeing here is what happens when these “factions” have a lower bar for splitting out and forming their own party. In practice, this means that instead of having a binary or ternary split in the parliament, you get a smoother transition between the extremes, so it’s much easier to find parties that will collaborate.

If you have only two or three parties, the distance between them will typically be so large that they can’t really collaborate on anything. However, when you have 6-8 parties, you’ll typically be able to find a group of 3-4 parties that are able to form a majority compromise on any given issue. Collaboration becomes more fluid (instead of constant “us vs. them”), compromises become easier, and voters get to express a more nuanced opinion at the polls (not just “left vs. right”, but “I want left-wing tax policies, combined with this specific environmental profile, and these specific stances on education”).

This only becomes dysfunctional if the parties/politicians are unable to collaborate and compromise effectively. However, countries with a parliament like the one you see here will typically foster politicians that are able to collaborate and compromise. You won’t survive as a politician in this kind of parliament if you’re a hardliner that refuses to budge on anything.

Honestly, a fragmented parliament is a good thing.

There’s a balance to strike though. As long as there are enough parties willing to collaborate that you get a kind of semi-stable majority coalition, all is good. There have been situations though (e.g. recently in Belgium I think?) where no-one is able to build any kind of stable coalition, and you just end up with a government that’s unable to get anything done.

The Danes have a long history of having very many parties in their parliament (I think their cutoff for “equalisation mandates” is at 2 %), so their politicians are generally quite good at finding compromises and building coalitions. I think that long-term, having this kind of parliament is healthier for the political climate, since it forces everyone to compromise much more often, as well as making it easier for voters to express more nuanced opinions, and forcing voters to consider a broader spectrum of options.

For my own part (Norwegian), I’ve only ever voted for left-wing parties, but which of the parties I vote for can change between elections. I know that these parties will typically collaborate on most topics, so I can use my vote to push that block in the direction I want. It also becomes easier to get cross-block collaborations, because you can have cases where e.g. the “environmentalist” party on the left and right collaborate, or where the more centre-leaning parties of one block collaborate on certain issues with the other block.

Lemme stick my hands in those fissures!

Guy had 97 priors including DUIs.

Hence the photo, which should make it pretty easy to figure out who the guy is when he’s already registered in the system. Once you know who he is you quickly find out where he’s living, because again, the guy has 97 priors, so the cops should have a solid database on where he tends to reside and who he knows.

The fucking day he got out he bought a cheap used car, slapped an old out-of-state license plate on it, and went right back to driving around drunk as shit.

That’s absolutely horrendous… hope he gets caught again before he kills someone…

Besides that: That could quickly be a situation where whoever is apprehending him recognises that he’s drunk-driving and that he’s a big enough threat to the public to warrant chasing him down instead of letting him go and apprehending him later.

Or, hear me out: The cops that are well enough educated and trained to recognise that it’s safer to just track down the guy later will also be well enough educated and trained to not do that. Because doing that would be stupid, and the whole point here is that you can and should select and train people with a monopoly on violence to not do stupid shit that gets people killed.

The only research I’ve seen on using LLMs in a school setting found that the kids that were given access to an LLM performed a bit better on exercises that those without. At the same time their experienced learning was a lot better. When they finally got a test assignment, the kids that had been using LLMs during exercises flopped and performed significantly worse than those that hadn’t.

Or, as is commonly done elsewhere, get their plates and a photo, and drop by their house later (unless they’re an active threat to public safety of course).

This is literally the SOP in a lot of other countries: You don’t chase someone in a vehicle unless you absolutely have to. You rather just identify them and apprehend them at a later point.

Which is still utterly absurd, because it implies that a harder working dev would be spending more time chatting to a bot.

Now that is a fun-fact! I knew the guy was called Mercator, but didn’t know about the Latin origin, and can definitely see the origin of the name spreading as a misconception.

Another fun-fact: The Mercator projection was, at its inception, the first map that could be used for long-distance sea navigation over the mediterranean and Atlantic in the sense that axes are scaled such that courses plotted on the map actually match the compass course you need to follow to get somewhere. This also happens to be the reason it became popular, and the reason it was made, rather than the commonly quoted reason of “making Europe big at the expense of things closer to the equator”.

I may be mistaken here, but I think the concept of a “continental shelf” is pretty well defined geologically. That is: Outside a land mass, the ocean floor extends a certain distance before dropping off to the deep ocean floor. An island would be a piece of land that sticks out of the sea from this continental shelf, while the “continent” includes the entire shelf, and all the land masses that stick out of the ocean on that shelf.

Of course, this seems to break down a bit for e.g. the Europe/Asia divide (and probably a lot more), but the concept of “continents” vs. “islands” can make sense geologically, although the “continents” are then different from the geopolitical borders ones we usually talk about.

I agree with the premise of “simple but hard”. However, I still want to underscore that large areas of the ocean will at any given time be covered in clouds or fog. Sure, once you find the ship the first time, you’ve narrowed your search radius significantly, but a ship that can move at 30 knots can move around 1500 nautical miles (2800 km) without being seen under just 48 hours of cloud cover. That means any intel on the position of a ship carrying weapons that can easily strike at ranges of 500-1000 km is fresh produce. Just a day after you spotted that ship, it can have moved almost 1500 km, and if you lose track of it under clouds during your next satellite pass, it can suddenly be 3000 km from where you last spotted it.

What this means is that the “hard” element here is significant. Even the “simple” element becomes complicated by stuff like night time and cloud cover. All this taken into account, there are very few countries in the world with enough surveillance satellites and processing capacity to actually keep a pin on a ship at sea over any significant period of time.