There’s no need to speculate that Melinda had special knowledge. Epstein was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008 and was subsequently a registered sex offender. Bill admits to attending dinners with Epstein until 2011.
Kimono is 着物 which transliterates to “wear-thing.” It’s the word for clothes, not just the traditional robes, and it’s not etymologically related to a word for Winter in any language.
Japanese has many -mono words based on verbs: tabemono 食べ物 is food (eat-thing), nomimono 飲み物 is a beverage (drink-thing), tatemono 建物 is a building (build-thing), kudamono 果物 is fruit (reward-thing; the Japanese word for “to fruit” being related to the verb for achieving, similar to English “come to fruition”).
Maybe. But a possible contributor for the 1918 flu pandemic's relative obscurity is that it overlapped with World War I and was followed within ~20 years by the Great Depression and World War II. It occurred during one of the most turbulent times in modern history.
In contrast, the 2020 pandemic is presently not sharing the spotlight. Maybe something of comparable impact will happen. Or maybe it'll be forgotten regardless. But I don't know that the 1918 pandemic's status is all that illustrative.
I can only really think of two times in history where we talk about a major disease outbreak: the Black Death, and the Plague of Justinian, and the latter one is really marginal (unless you're covering Late Antiquity in detail, it's going to be unknown). Other than these two, there's the less specific discussion of disease during the New World colonization epoch.
I suspect that COVID-19 will replace the Spanish Flu as the "pandemic everyone talks about when there's a pandemic concern," but this is the sort of mention that requires explanation because it's not really part of the expected repertoire of history the same way the Black Death is.
The pandemic is dovetailing in interesting ways with other matters of geopolitical importance. I wouldn't say anything is stealing the spotlight from anything else but the confluence of events makes this moment feel like we might be crossing the Rubicon.
No. If Alice reports Bob, the report only includes the most recent messages from Bob to Alice as forwarded from Alice's local copy of their chat. No other messages are made available to WhatsApp. None of Bob's other messages to other people are included, nor could they be since Alice wouldn't have them. In your scenario, if Alice was law enforcement or cooperating with law enforcement, her reporting Bob and then them subpoenaing WhatsApp would only grant them circuitous access to messages from Bob they already had on Alice's device.
No. WhatsApp does not keep delivered messages, and, by default, messages are end-to-end encrypted and cannot be read by WhatsApp.[1] As shown in the screenshots of the reporting feature in the article, reporting causes your phone to send (forward) the relevant messages from your phone to WhatsApp as part of the report. For reporting a user or business, the relevant messages are "most recent messages" from the user/business. For reporting a group, the relevant messages are "most recent messages" in the group.
This feature does not change the privacy story for WhatsApp in any way. You already trust users you are chatting with to not copy or screenshot private messages and share them. You already trust the app to not forward or store your messages without your consent.
But it isn’t a good point absent the bad assumption that the mentally ill are more dangerous. It only takes one bicyclist that’s fallen off his bike to kill you. So what?
This is a symptom of people being to primed to believe that mentally ill people are dangerous, not a legitimate cause for concern.
Purple call the police on someone yelling. A mentally ill person yelling isn't a danger. They might be in crisis or pain, or they might be unable to effectively communicate.
A gun didn't help in any of those, the vast, vast majority of cases.
I appreciate that they decided to apologize, but I find this statement lackluster at best. A better, more earnest apology would properly address the major concerns Jeremy raised. This touches on just two of the issues and then only superficially. I don't expect them to lay everything bare and pay public penance. I'm not interested in assigning blame. But apologies ring hollow when you don't even discuss what, if anything, you feel you did wrong.
In fact, in committing only to "improve our process to avoid this from happening," it reads as if they take no meaningful responsibility for how they handled informing Jeremy. It feels as if they are sorry Jeremy was stressed out for a week but unapologetic for any of the numerous and hard-to-defend actions they took to cause that stress. They blame the process, as if it required them to inform Jeremy of a complaint they weren't ready and willing to discuss with him, to assure him they'd give him details the following day and then renege on that, to not give him adequate time to understand the accusation and formulate a response. And it is apparent, from the story as both sides tell it, that far from a "crucial miscommunication," the Committee was accurately communicating what they thought. Their error was in prematurely drawing conclusions and not giving Jeremy the benefit of the doubt.
They also don't address the confusion around having two differing codes; the serious and counterproductive issues with Codes of Conduct prescribing acceptable behaviors (instead of proscribing unacceptable ones), especially when such prescriptions are vague; or Jeremy's accusation that the Committee, itself, failed to follow their own Code(s) of Conduct and Enforcement Guide. And while I would not want or expect them to discuss the specifics of Jeremy's case (unless they have his consent to do so), I do think it's necessary to discuss the issue of whether they believe merely making someone uncomfortable through disagreement on relevant topics can (let alone should) be the sole/primary basis for a finding of misconduct, especially when the people made uncomfortable are not even the person that is being disagreed with.
Perhaps they've given Jeremy a more in-depth and sincere apology and explanation in private. But I don't think that suffices. Like Jeremy, I believe that Codes of Conduct can (and often do) play an important role in improving our communities and events. I'm sure the Enforcement Committee would claim to believe this as well. But the numerous mistakes they've made in this matter do serious harm, not just to Jeremy, but to the larger cause. The way to mitigate (if not remedy) those harms is by honestly admitting to mistakes
No. Look at the cookbook application (http://weboob.org/applications/qcookboob). It incorporates multiple sources of recipes behind a single, consistent, tailor-made interface. This pattern repeats in the other applications. They are not taking a single website and transforming it into a native application. They are building applications to service specific domains that use the web as a data source.
They are also bringing web content into the command line. They have a large number of console applications. For example, there's a command and REPL for tracking shipments.
Putting aside the misunderstanding of what this actually is, the premise of your question seems to be that "simply replacing" one technology with another can't be "liberating." I think that's wrong in general as well for the specific example of transforming a web app to a native one (though these seem to be Python, not C++). The web has constraining properties: browsers that provide rich interaction with modern web content are resource intensive; different websites have wildly different accessibility stories (and the lack of UI and terminological consistency in content is, itself, a hurdle for some people); ads, popups, and other distractions are harmful to load times, network usage, and user experience; and on and on. There's plenty of examples of transformations from one technology to another that trade out the source's constraints for the destination's.
I think you actually misunderstood my comment. You know what are also “applications to service specific domains that uses the web as a data source”? Web pages.
Deliver the QML over the wire here and you just reinvented a kind of browser, that consumes html|json data from the web and has a different native UI library.
Web pages use a data source behind the scenes, but web pages are NOT a data source. A rendered Qt app is not a data source either. weboob builds plain-old objects (or JSON), it is a data source. The Qt applications are just an example front-end using weboob data source as a data source. Furthermore, this data source is made for aggregation/standardization, as weboob returns results in the same format whatever the site you choose, so it's still better than if each site proposed an API specific to the site itself.
The problem with conda is that it's what broke the machine I was talking about. Apparently it doesn't very much like when you use a package manager other than conda, and things break in subtle ways.
pipenv felt like it took forever to complete simple tasks. I briefly used it for a small project and quickly realized that it was a mistake. I now just use conda environment.yml and a requirements.txt, those two cover most bases I feel like.
