Melllvar

Multiple HTTP requests can be performed over a single connection, and not all connections are for HTTP requests in the first place. The only way to know that an HTTP request is being made (or how many) is to actually see the requests.

It would be a privacy nightmare, of course. Either we would all have to install monitoring software on our devices, or we would have to allow ISPs to break HTTPS.

What are you suggesting should have been done here?

Assuming a ~20% shift towards pro-choice opinions I would expect more pro-choice laws, not an orgy of casual abortions.

Polling suggests that around 70% of women and 50% of men support abortion, though. If those stats simply reversed then nothing really changes.

To be fair, there are important differences between open source and closed source software.

They do pay for their power. The bill would require them to pay for grid upgrades that their usage makes necessary.

I’m curious how it’s considered a “layoff” if it’s based on performance rather than the job itself being eliminated.

Fun fact: no member of the Supreme Court was willing to sign their name to the Bush v. Gore decision. It was instead issued per curiam, “by the court” itself.

So stop acting politically, John.

Yuh

“Old money” vs. “New money” is a particularly American concept, though.

Your nervous system has finite bandwidth. The extra movement and sensation signals drown out the “need to pee” signal, making it seem less urgent. It’s also why we rub the area around minor injuries to relieve pain.

Assuming it survives the fall to the bottom of the elevator shaft, the building management should be able to retrieve it for you.

Krombiception, of course.

…you do have krombiception, don’t you?

“Not do anything useful” would be more accurate than “do nothing”. But that’s just my tl;dr.

[…] the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies […]

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/

tl;dr:

1. The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
2. The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
3. The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory

But the resolution passed anyway, which is why world hunger has disappeared.

Dragons, giants, monsters, that sort of thing. They weren’t entirely wrong.