It is also the number at which your reproduction exceeds that of only replacing your own life. This is very important to some parents to leave the world with more people in it.

I bet some guy with a ton of badges on his suit is asking the exact question in some Pentagon boardroom right now.

Oh wow, they really are telling people to bypass the cert warning! It's a shame that the average layperson won't understand how breathtakingly stupid this is, because more people need to be paying attention to the staggering incompetence of the US military under this administration.

Honestly this isn't even the first time this kind of advice has been given to non-DoD users needing to access a DoD service over commercial means.

The Navy a few years back were experimenting with letting users check basic HR things in their service record (e.g. to request days off) and despite the leadership's stated intent being for Sailors to be able to do this on their actual personal mobile devices, the IT people duly signed all the relevant server certs under the DoD PKI "because policy forces us to", and then cooked up user training guides that patiently explained to Sailors how to bypass security warnings in their browser.

So if nothing else at least there's experience to go by here, ha.

Look, when I forget to renew the cert on my Jellyfin server, like 4 people suffer.

When the DoD forgets to renew the cert for their cybersecurity download website AND can't figure what a A TLS cert even is (calling it a "TSSL Certification"), this is an indicator that our military has absolutely zero understanding of the most basic cybersecurity concepts.

If you can't tell the difference between a hobbyist forgetting to renew their Let's Encrypt cert, vs. a trillion-dollar military not even knowing what a certificate is, maybe you should work for our military, because they can't tell the difference either.

I'm betting Kuwaebashi covers that.

It actually prohibits holding the chopsticks in your mouth. You have a chopstick rest (and workarounds) for that.

Just like the next term on the list does not prohibit eating food on the bottom but rather digging into the bowl instead of eating in top down order.

"Don't speak ill of the dead"?

How about "Don't be a bad person when you're alive"?

Something I was brought up to believe was that you shouldn't speak ill of the recently deceased. A courtesy to those in mourning.

I struggle with that rule sometimes.

And Chuck Norris was brought up to believe that gay people are the devil. I was conditioned to not take my parents traditions as gospel. The taboo against speaking ill of the recently deceased is not universal as we saw after Khamenei's death, and it is possible to debate whether we should discuss the failings of the recently deceased dispassionately, as newspaper obituaries usually do, and whether the impact on society of those critiques is net negative or not. There is the famous case of a premature unflattering obituary of Alfred Nobel upon the death of his brother possibly inspiring Nobel to think about his legacy, for example.

All this to say that I don't think it's necessarily problematic for you to mention that he had and shared some pretty awful views.

There are good people whose politics I disagree with. If you are using your celebrity status to cause harm to millions on the international stage, systematically attempting to strip their rights, I think it's fair to say they weren't a good person.

> Does being a good person also mean agreeing with your politics?

Can we stop framing human rights as "politics"? People hating on others because they don't like that they're gay or trans or black or brown... that's just people being fundamentally awful people, and has nothing to do with politics.

The fact that they are then taking their awfulness and engaging politically to enshrine their awful views into law just adds another dimension to it.

I said this in another comment: if these people with awful views would stop trying to make those awful views laws, then I'd have much less of a problem with them; I could at least just ignore them.

> Is there one way to be a good person?

What a useless, one-dimensional take on the problem.

This is hopefully an exciting time to consider a Motorola device, since they are partnering with GrapheneOS, but I worry that Google will block Google Play Services on any device that doesn't comply, so this might actually be a demoralizing time to be a GrapheneOS fan, when we watch them worm their stupid walled garden nonsense into the Motorola version of it.

You don't need Google Play at all on GrapheneOS. You have to option of installing a sandboxed version of Google Play, but it isn't installed by default. Google's verification shenanigans are otherwise irrelevant to Graphene, it only applies to apps distributed through the Google store.

Blocking Play might not be that bad if some frameworks/efforts crop up to allow easily targeting devices without it.

The vast majority of apks work just fine without Google libraries. In some rare cases, things such as notifications that depend on Google's servers may not work if the developers haven't not implemented an alternative backend such as a direct connection.

I am not happy about this, but as long as advanced Android users can still turn this off and keep it off, we're still in a better place than iOS.

Even though I understand the design decisions here, I think we're going about this the wrong way. Sure, users can be pressured into allowing unverified apps and installing malware, and adding a 24-hour delay will probably reduce the number of victims, but ultimately, the real solution here is user education, not technological guardrails.

If I want to completely nuke my phone with malware, Google shouldn't stand in my way. Why not just force me to read some sort of "If someone is rushing you to do this, it is probably an attack" message before letting me adjust this setting?

Anyone who ignores that warning is probably going to still fall for the scam. If anything, scammers will just communicate the new process, and it risks sounding even more legitimate if they have to go through more Google-centric steps.

I can appreciate that this verdict is a win for freedom, while also finding the footnote that Afroman is not pro-freedom quite useful.

Making up details of the incident doesn't help either. They didn't eat anything, a cop just did a double-take at the lemon pound cake, and Afroman wrote a song about how they wanted to eat it.