The added scrutiny at some border crossings can be problematic too. Explaining to the inspectors at the Turkey/Bulgaria border why I had two phones and two laptops (and dissuading them of the suspicion that I was smuggling electronics to friends/family) through language barriers was a pain.
If anything the Tarkov ban treadmill is a way to drive sales. Even if some of them get disputed as fraudulent due to stolen card numbers, BSG may still come out ahead.
Maybe so, but I would contend it is worth considering the broader implications of those investments and the effects that new and upgraded infrastructure could have on the greater economy.
Speaking only for myself, I would be okay with a lower return if it also means we as a society have good public transit, roads that aren't more pothole than asphalt, water that doesn't have to be boiled on occasion, reliable power, modern internet, and so on.
Good, such records shouldn't be exempt. So what if they were gathered by a third party, it was a service carried out under request of the local government/law enforcement, and paid for by public money.
Such records shouldn't exist in the first place. I agree they shouldn't be exempt if they do, but let's not just accept that it's okay to have a fleet of cameras recording us 24/7 everywhere we go, managed by a private entity, accessed freely and without any probable cause by local and federal agencies who don't even communicate with each other.
It was argued that making the Flock data public violated everyone's privacy. It's important to stress and remind everyone the privacy violation occurred the moment pictures are indiscriminately taken, processed by AI, and stored for every single car that passes by. Not to mention family homes, pedestrians, and other things being captured in the process.
We are only a couple steps away from doing the same thing for pedestrians. Why not just take pictures of every single person walking by now? This already happens in some places. Flock is paving the way to make it a government sanctioned mass surveillance program.
Not quibbling, but preservation and production of these records has really minimal connection to the public purpose behind sunshine laws. It reveals the fact of suspicionless mass surveillance, but the monitoring is not of or about government functions. Clearly the drafters of a law were not imaginative enough to foresee the dystopian turn government has taken, but let’s face it: if someone put that surveillance camera in the courthouse, which is more connected to public sunshine, the analysis might have gone differently.
Sounds more like an argument against the cameras at all, which in turn is an argument for keeping the footage public; as hard as it is to get most people to care about surveillance, hiding the recordings would only make it harder. Any remote possibility of something like this eventually is going to start with people being uncomfortable with it, and that's not going to happen if we aren't forced to confront the full implications of it.
Plus, there's the usual concerns of how easy it is to craft narratives by showing only bits and pieces of what happened. If law enforcement is going to be using this footage as evidence for arrests, it's definitely better that that people can have their lawyers review the public record for footage that might paint things in a different light. Sure, prosecutors should theoretically be required to share potentially exculpatory evidence with the defense, but there's no shortage of known instances where that didn't happen, and the system should not be set to to make the availability of information even more unbalanced than it already is
'official' was the problem I think - I bought the addon from Vaillant Europe, but Vaillant UK seemed to disavow it, even though the boiler models and interfaces were the same. :sigh:
Seriously. I have a featureful PDF viewer I am intimately familiar with. I want it to be the default for all PDFs, ever. This gimped viewer in the browser is not what I want.
Not sure how bad it is these days, but Adobe Reader used to open pretty slowly (and if you had Adobe Acrobat open your PDFs by default, it was even slower), so an in-browser PDF viewer was appreciated for that purpose.
Also, it can be useful to keep the PDF in the context of the app you opened it in. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a window manager that surfaces the fact that, for example, one macOS Preview window was opened from the browser, another from Slack, another from Finder, etc. Compare to iOS, where opening a PDF viewer from an app will result in a button at the top-left corner to go back to the app you opened it from.
> This gimped viewer in the browser is not what I want.
The previous comment was not talking about the browser viewer, it was talking about various website viewers, like the one by Jira.
I agree website viewers are pointless. But most of the time I actually like the browser viewer better, if it opens links directly, than offline viewers. Because I regard PDFs as websites (similar to jpeg files), and I normally don't want to accumulate them in my download folder.
I agree though that the browser viewers are often too bare-bones.
>The previous comment was not talking about the browser viewer, it was talking about various website viewers, like the one by Jira.
Which tend to be, imo, even worse! I think I'd rather have a toner container explode on me than try to suffer through the experience of using Aconex's PDF utility ever again.
>Poorly executed parking solar could reduce sightlines and escape routes by crowding ground level
There's certainly no need for the support superstructure to need more pillars and members than your typical multi deck parking structure and while yes some have bad sightlines a majority are totally fine.
The problem is that treatment like that is probably not compatible with the whole "being biodegradable" thing - which defeats the entire purpose.
Same with "paper" coffee cups: you want coffee cups which can be recycled, and paper is recycleable, but paper can't hold water, so it requires a plastic / hydrophobic coating, so you can't recycle the paper, so your recycleable coffee cups aren't recycleable.
reply