That’s fair, and a good example on the first one.

I don’t really care to quibble on the details too much, but I believe a lot of definitions would distinguish the coercive from the forcible.

In either case, it speaks to the cnc phrase being more apt than otherwise.

Well, less than the people who said “oh, okay” when they learned what the term meant. Getting hung up on how you feel about the words they use for their sex lives is really weird.

You do know that no one made them switch terms right? The people doing it and using the term decided to change it because it made it more clear when they were talking to each other.
Since you hadn’t encountered the idea before, I don’t think they’re super concerned about their sex lives being easy to explain to you. Your opinion isn’t super relevant to other people’s sexual preferences or the words they use to talk about it to each other.

It’s more blunt, but people who have been raped would point out that there’s a big difference between the sexual nature of consensual non consent, and the objectively violent nature of rape.

It’s less that it’s less honest than that it’s more clear about what it is, and what it isn’t. It’s about what people think rape is about, and not what it actually is: angry, hateful and violent.

Twin Towers wholesale outlet: our prices are coming down fast!

Pearl harbor casual clothing.

Jim crows bar and grill.

Management isn’t your friend, but managers are still people. The job is not the person. A good, nice, friendly person can have a job where their work interests aren’t necessarily aligned with yours and still try to do what they can to see that your interests are met.

If they fire me, no manager is going to ask me how I’m holding up or what my plans for the future are

That’s just not true. It’s not universally untrue, but it’s just wrong to default to such an antagonistic view from the outset.

All that to say: it sounds like you’re mainly having difficulty reconciling your thoughts on how you behave towards people with how you behave towards management. If you replace job related words with words like “people” or “person” then the question gets a lot easier.

I had an argument with this person everyone likes and after thinking about it, it was mostly my fault we raised our voices. She raised her voice first but because I wasn’t listening to her because she triggered me.

It’s pretty obvious to me that you apologize. Then ask if they’d be open to a conversation about what you feel could have gone better.
“Hey, do you have a minute? Sorry about how I acted when we were talking the other day. I thought about it and realized that I hadn’t been listening, which wasn’t right of me and made things worse. Would you be open to discussing it now that we have a little distance from it? I’d like to explain myself a bit and share some related concerns that I had, if nows a good time.”

They’re a person. If you feel your wronged them, apologize. If you feel like you want to explain things and offer feedback, just make it clear this isn’t a prerequisite for the apology or anything.

Exactly. If you’re apologizing, apologize. There’s nothing wrong with also asking to have a conversation about what caused the conflict.

“I’m sorry” and "can we talk about what happened?” are both valid, but ultimately aren’t dependent on each other.

I think it was the soviets that had more of a prolonged track record of “state propaganda is lies” that worked to distance it from the notion of “propaganda is messaging” sense that’s technically usable.

Basically everyone has propaganda at the same time the Nazis did. It wasn’t until the soviets used it to spin things more in the way we associate with the modern sense that the term fell properly out of favor.

Except that with the website example it’s not that they’re ignoring the price or just walking out with the item. It’s that the item was not labeled with a price, nor were they informed of the price. Then, rather than just walking out, they requested the item and it was delivered to them with no attempt to collect payment.

The key part of a website is that the user cannot take something. The site has to give it to them.
A more apt retail analogy might be you go to a website. You see a scooter you like, so you click “I want it!”. The site then asks for your address and a few days later you get a scooter in the mail.
That’s not theft, it’s a free scooter. If the site accused you of theft because you didn’t navigate to an unlinked page they didn’t tell you about to find the prices, or try to figure out payment before requesting, you’d rightly be pretty miffed.

The shoplifting analogy doesn’t work because it’s not shoplifting if the vendor gives it to you knowingly and you never misrepresented the cost or tried to avoid paying. Additionally, taking someone’s property without their permission is explicitly illegal, and we have a subcategory that explicitly spells out how retail fraud works and is illegal.

Under our current system the way to prevent someone from having your thing without paying or meeting some other criteria first is to collect payment or check that criteria before giving it to them.

To allow people to have things on their website freely available to humans but to prevent grabbing and using it for training will require a new law of some sort.

It really does matter if it’s legally binding if you’re talking about content licensing. That’s the whole thing with a licensing agreement: it’s a legal agreement.

The store analogy isn’t quite right. Leaving a store with something you haven’t purchased with the consent of the store is explicitly illegal.
With a website, it’s more like if the “shoplifter” walked in, didn’t request a price sheet, picked up what they wanted and went to the cashier who explicitly gave it to them without payment.

The crux of the issue is that the website is still providing the information even if the requester never agreed or was even presented with the terms.
If your site wants to make access to something conditional then it needs to actually enforce that restriction.

It’s why the current AI training situation is unlikely to be resolved without laws to address it explicitly.

The thing is a robots.txt file doesn’t work as licensing. There’s no legal requirement to fetch the file, and no mechanism to consent or track consent.

This is putting up a sign that says everyone must pay, and then giving it to anyone who asks for free.

It’s from a time when you bought undried and planned wood rather than dried and planned like we typically do now.

It’s less a quirk of the imperial system and more a quirk of the lumber retail system, which is older than the metric system.
The biggest difference is that in places that use dimensional lumber and the metric system the pattern is to sell by actual dimension, rather than nominal. So a wall stud might be 45mmX145mm, or 63mmX75mm for a rafter, depending on your country.

Most north American hardware stores also sell by finished sizes now.

My life was changed forever when I learned I could say that 6% of 50 was 300%.

I prefer to keep it technically correct yet evil and confusing. 6% being a fancy way to write 0.06 or 6 * 1/100 means we can take 6 * 50 * 1/100 and simplify to 300 * 1/100 and then represent that as 300%.

While that’s certainly true, I don’t think that doesn’t apply to women’s clothing as well nor does it change that women’s clothing not having pockets is kinda bullshit, even though you can technically add your own after the fact.
It would be more of a “yes, but…” Situation if women’s clothing that didn’t have pockets always fit perfectly and hit all the criteria you mentioned. They have that problem and they don’t get pockets.

While true, it’s hardly fair that I, as a man, don’t need to learn to sew, buy a sewing machine , spend time getting materials or actually doing the sewing in order to have good pockets. My pants just come with good pockets.

The laws are usually amongst the oldest ones in a state and only revised pretty infrequently if someone has a particular issue. The dead person constituency is pretty weak, so the matter doesn’t get a lot of attention. Basically once they wrote down that embalming chemicals can’t be explosive (to prevent the coffin torpedo and general miguided insanity) there hasn’t been much need to update them.

In a lot of ways the funeral industry is better than others, regulation wise. You don’t need to do business with anyone. You’re dead. It’s illegal to act as a funeral director without a license, and the regulations are entirely imposed in the director. If you’ve got a body to get rid of, you don’t have to pay a funeral director. The government will take care of it pretty quickly if no one else will.
We’ve got similar restrictions on barbers. Except for the government giving you a haircut if no one else will. They don’t particularly care if you’re hairy.

I do agree though, a lot more basic functions of society should be fundamentally provided by the public. “Doctors” would have been a better, but less funny, example above.

Most states have laws indicating you must involve a funeral director to ensure the.body is disposed of properly, and then define the licensure requirements for a funeral director to include the types of disposal they can oversee.
It means they don’t need to define every type of burial you’re not allowed to do, and there should be a qualified professional to ensure whatever you’re doing is okay before you do it.

The libertarian impulse to say that if it doesn’t hurt anyone it should be legal butts into the reality that every time we have that policy for body disposal things tend to go funny in unexpected ways.

Certain types of burial allow the body to potentially contaminate nearby soil. Others can leave behind a void that can either collapse and disrupt nearby graves, or in some cases lift the body back to the surface in heavy rain. (Extremely uncommon now because essentially nowhere allows you to use those methods)

Funeral pyres or other forms of open air cremation are generally not legal due to concerns of fire spreading.
Whole body water burial is probably not legal in a body of fresh water in the US due mostly to the complexity of figuring out which law applies to that circumstance in any of the bodies of water that could be used that wouldn’t be grossly undersized and unsanitary. (Basically that means the Great lakes, which are the only ones with the depth and size sufficient, but are shared between multiple states and also Canada. Usually the rule is that if it’s not forbidden it’s permitted, but body disposal is more complicated)

Oh, don’t get me wrong. It’s odd for a clock to act this way, just not inexplicable. At best it’s an example of UI standards being applied without regard to sense, which is very much in line with Microsoft.

Most other clocks will do something similar, they just do it in the background. Something that’s a lot easier to do if you’re not following a UI framework that says you’re never allowed to change something in a way that might cause the user to see a weird shift. Other things just acknowledge that clock sync should only take a few milliseconds before the clock is even visible, that a timezone DB update will rarely cause a change of more than an hour, and that a user will probably not even notice if there’s a shift.