Also interesting is that it’s one of the small number of unquestionably public domain pieces of software. Not open source, but public domain. It’s not entirely clear if you can technically put your own work in the public domain, or if you’re just freely licensing it to anyone.

Sqlite was initially developed for the US military though, which explicitly makes it public domain.

It doesn’t matter, but it’s interesting.

A wise man once said:

You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes

It can be both, can’t it?
People should be paid a living wage. If you do more work than is the defined norm you should be paid increasingly more sums of money.
The intent of overtime laws was to encourage companies to hire someone else instead of making someone work 80 hours a week.

A business saying that they’ll pay you more if you work more at your discretion doesn’t bother me. Even with a perfectly good wage and benefits you’re going to have cases where people want a touch more more money. I had a coworker who did contracting jobs to pay for a new deck. He didn’t have to, but it kept his budget from getting weird.

There have been significant protests, but they have not been exactly massive

4/5 of the largest protests in US history have happened since 2025 directly as a response to trumps shit.

Several European countries have had bigger protests recently

Which ones? How big?

USA is so used to violence and abuse of minorities, they don’t even notice, and they think it’s normal

Spoken like someone who’s never actually dealt with anything other than our news filtered through your news.

I acknowledge that there are good Americans too, but they are not the ones in control, and they are the minority.

Considering you’re in Europe, the world experts in imperialism, brutal ethnic suppression, you still wear fucking blackface, you don’t even see the issues with your treatment of migrants as a problem, and a fair number of the protests I found while trying to figure out which one you meant were “anti migrant”, I feel like that’s a bit of a rich sentiment.

You do know that one of the most offensive policies trump has been pursuing is to rollback our citizenship rules to those that are the norm in Europe?

They don’t need to read you your rights for a field sobriety test. I believe every state has laws that make consent a condition of the drivers license and establish that the tests aren’t self incrimination.

They should have read you your rights but if they didn’t question you after arrest it’s probably academic, since failure to do so would mean the answers you didn’t give to the questions they didn’t ask were inadmissible.

A dwi doesn’t require alcohol. They could just say you were on “something”. It’s a catchall for not being in a fit state to drive.

Anything anyone says here is pointless. You need to talk to a lawyer.

I’m not even sure that’s close to true anymore. Like, the biggest companies in the world, when they need to use a relational database, typically go for something “not oracle”.

Wikipedia gets more traffic than most enterprises and they use mariadb. They don’t even really do it in the weird ways that AWS does, where they use it as a bizarre caching layer.

It’s kinda like how for the longest time “mainframes” were the go-to computer for enterprise applications with extreme IO needs. You probably wouldn’t recommend someone go talk to IBM if they need to process a lot of records in this day and age unless they were already neck deep in cobol, the go-to language for enterprise applications.

I wouldn’t expect a doctor to actually provide information. That information would be updated by a doctor, compiled by a PA, and given to an administrator to clear with lawyers.

It’s locked down enough that I wouldn’t expect any different even if the request was coming directly from the patients lawyer. Being a high profile patient just means there’s more eyes making sure the statement is in line with the authorized disclosure.

A 100% authorized request is still going to go through hospital administration and lawyers to ensure that what’s being stated is entirely consistent with what the patient authorized for release. If McConnell authorized “had pneumonia” then that’s what they can say, and they can’t even imply “had double lung transplant”.

Beyond that, any complex patient will have multiple doctors. When the medical information is coming from four doctors under the supervision of a fifth, compiled by a PA for use by an administrator after legal approval I’m not sure it makes sense to say anything beyond “came from the office of”.
Similar to how a municipal spokesperson will read a statement regarding a crime with information from “investigators”.

In an ideal world the hospital administration exists in part to shield providers from public scrutiny in cases like this. You want doctors doing doctor stuff, not formatting press releases or dealing with death threats because they did or didn’t have anything to do with Mitch McConnell being debilitated.

That’s not entirely strange. Commenting on the health of a patient is really restricted. There are circumstances where it’s allowed in limited capacities but I wouldn’t expect a doctor to actually provide information. That information would be updated by a doctor, compiled by a PA, and given to an administrator to clear with lawyers.

It’s locked down enough that I wouldn’t expect any different even if the request was coming directly from the patients lawyer. Being a high profile patient just means there’s more eyes making sure the statement is in line with the authorized disclosure.

Eh, kinda a stretch to make this about Americans.
In the original thalidomide problem it was the same ‘paranoia’ that kept it entirely off the market in the US.

Beyond that, I’m not sure I get the reasoning behind "Americans are so dumb that they put safety and usage instructions on cancer medication, with emphasis on the most severe warnings!”
Why wouldn’t you want to label dangerous things that are actually, uniquely hazardous?

Absolutely no idea. I almost logged on when typing the previous reply to see if they were still offering me the “thin blue line commemorative gun holster” they were the last time I was on, but I realized I really didn’t want to.

I feel like I see it being used as a common enough way for events to share details though, so it probably isn’t just older demographics.

It’s some of that, on some platforms. Other platforms also get paid to promote posts or advertisement. Depending on who pays the most, you can see different things based on your demographics.
An important thing to remember is that they will show you something in the money making category. If they know what you want, they make more if they show you something that’s likely to be effective. If they don’t know what you want, they make more if they show you something targeting your demographic. If they’re fuzzy on everything, they show you something.

Which political geographic is more likely to target Facebook? Which one is more likely to spend demographic money to try to court younger white men from a low to middle income bracket?

Your phone fell off the dashboard phone stand, you caught it and set it in your lap.

It happens every couple of decades with AI. Since it’s a broader field than most people think, we have a pretty long cycle of a new development looking exciting, people getting way too excited and optimistic, the development being exactly what it was promised to be, and then people getting disappointed and avoiding anything with the AI label. Then we decide that because we’re used to this new thing, it can be used in stuff as was originally appropriate but it no longer qualifies as AI, because “that’s not AI, it’s just ___”.

You’re conflating “belief” with “faith”. One is about what you accept as true without evidence, and the other is about what you simply hold to be true.
If someone said “there is no god”, I would take that as a true statement. I believe it to be a true statement because the positive assertion that there is has not met the burden of proof.

The usage of evidence to guide belief is empiricism, and that’s not a theological philosophy, it’s the basis of the scientific method. Empiricism isn’t a prerequisite for atheism because they’re different topics. It’s entirely possible to be an atheist for reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of evidence. Asserting that atheism is about not believing things without evidence is fundamentally misrepresenting the broad meaning of the word and substituting your specific philosophy as the main interpretation.

I do not believe in anything

Okay.

There’s either evidence of a thing or there isn’t.

Can you provide me with evidence that that statement is true? Without tying a logical knot?

Empiricism is itself a belief in the sense that you meant it. You cannot have evidence for the validity of evidence without first accepting that evidence lends credence to a notion.

That being said: rewind and reread what I said but take the word belief as “agreeing with the truth of the statement”. The existence of a deity is a binary. Ignoring questions of “why” one accepts a statement, one either accepts a statement, accepts it’s opposite, or rejects the premise entirely. The conventional empirical agnostic atheist stance is to believe there is no deity because the question is not really knowable, and a claim should be disbelieved without proportional evidence. Belief that there is no god is not the blind assertion that there isn’t one. It just means that’s the state of affairs of reality as far as you know.

This is like telling a Jew they’re a Christian because the old testament is heavily cribbed from Jewish texts.

Not quite. It’s like telling someone who says they’re Jewish, that Christ was the true savior and son of God, and that he brought a new covenant that comes before the covenant formed with moses that they’re describing Christianity.

That’s exaggerating the point, but my meaning is that while your beliefs are your’s and it’s rude to correct someone on them, the word used to describe those beliefs can be much more readily discussed.

I mean, much like agnosticism is derived from “not knowledge”, “atheism” is derived from “not god”. “Lack of belief (in a diety)” is the definition of atheism.
The distinction between strong and weak, sometimes called “positive” and “negative”, is “belief that there is not” vs “no belief that there is”. Similar to how different strengths of agnosticism express “do not know” vs “cannot know”. They both lack a belief in a god. An agnostic who does not believe is a type of atheist. Since they’re compatible philosophies there’s no contradiction or need to choose. Like liking chocolate ice cream and liking root beer.

Atheism makes no claims or beliefs. Atheism simply says that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration.

You’re thinking empiricism. Atheism is most fundamentally the belief that there is not a god. There are atheist positions that are consistent with empiricism, but not all of them are, nor do they need to be.
There are gradients to it, but atheism is fundamentally about belief. The rational for that belief is a different set of philosophy.

they’re just categories people made up, in my opinion, for the sake of arguing

First time talking philosophy? ;)

In serious talk though, I think your comment is a perfect example of why they are real categories. You have firm opinions on all of them, and all of them are actual things that people have believed and do believe.

Most of the “can’t know” school of agnostics aren’t “can’t know therefore equal odds”, but closer to “the question cannot even be rationally considered, so any opinion at all is irrational”.
What color was space before the big bang? If you say it was purple, I would disagree with you. If you say it’s not purple I would also disagree. It’s beyond just a simple agreement about a set of facts, it’s a disbelief in the existence of that set of facts in the first place.

I just pictured milking string cheese out of an udder, and so you have to suffer too.

Well, there’s strong and weak atheism. Strong atheism being the position akin to “I know there is no god”. Agnosticism would be the belief that you cannot draw a conclusion, that the evidence is inconclusive, or that knowledge is impossible. Weak atheism would be the position akin to “there’s no reason to believe, so I don’t”.

To flog a well beaten analogy: the teapot in orbit around the sun directly opposite the earth.
The theist says there’s definitely a teapot. The strong atheist says there definitely isn’t. The agnostic withholds judgement because we cannot know. The weak atheist says there’s no reason to believe there’s a teapot.

“Lack of belief” is specifically an atheist trait. Agnosticism is lack of knowing on the matter.
Atheism and agnosticism are compatible, which is why there’s often conflation between the two. I personally don’t think we can know, but I see no reason to believe.
There are also agnostics who believe in a deity, even though they don’t think we can really know.

Finally, for the last bit of pedantry: empirical evidence isn’t the only type of knowledge. Math, for example, is not evidence based, nor is it empirical. We don’t typically count algebra as a matter of faith however.
There are schools of atheism that would claim that you can know that God does not exist because said existence is logically contradictory in a way that can be deductively demonstrated, similar to how things can be disproven in mathematics.