You're right about the backyard but that would involve a person or people. If the discharge is aggravated, by definition it implies that people are involved. Adding the gender of the person that is implied is done for an emotional response from certain groups by not providing context that is useful. We fill in the blank with our biases.
sphericth0r
joined 1 year ago
I think that they're saying that the person is implied, aggravated discharge of a weapon with no person involved is just target practice.
It's probably best to look at what the devops industry is embracing, environment variables are as secure as any of the alternatives but poor implementations will always introduce attack vectors. Secret management stores require you to authenticate, which requires you to store the credential for it somewhere - no matter what there's no way to secure an insecure implementation of secrets access
That's just as insecure lol, env vars are far better
I guess, according to this article, car insurance companies are encouraging people to drive recklessly and kill others in their vehicles, simply by providing them with insurance against the bodily injury of others. I'm not sure how the author doesn't see the parallels between any insurance that guards against reckless behavior and the NRA's insurance. To be clear I'm not a user of their insurance or a member of their organization, just finding the lack of introspection in the argument used in the article appalling.
Even worse, they'll claim it was a bug
Yes, and I find them indistinguishable from liberal subreddits. The echo chambers are pretty easy to find..
Just do a little bit of research into the fuel efficiency of various sized vehicles, the correlation is not direct and some larger vehicles get better gas mileage than smaller vehicles strictly due to efficiency. A small inefficient motor and a large efficient motor may yield the same mpg, but the large efficient motor is extracting more power from the same fuel source. And that's not even getting into diesel versus gasoline.....
I'm not sure why you take issue with the facts that the word aggravated in this context means that the people are implied, or that adding words is not easier to read. It's okay that you didn't know what aggravated means, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is redundant information. Redundant information is harder to read, and the specific gender of the victim does not add anything to the context for the headline, a de facto harder to read title. It's possible that this was done on purpose, or that the author was also unaware that aggravated means people are involved and felt they needed to add words.