Correct. Freedom of Speech does not imply freedom from consequence and only protects you from the government. The State can't tell you what you're allowed say and can't jail you for saying them (outside of a limited band of things that have been thoroughly litigated). However, that does nothing to modify the social contract. If you say something that most people don't like, they're going to get you to stop saying it one way or another.

I made it a lot farther before I just couldn't anymore. I was kinda hoping for some kind of real self-reflection or ability to further understand the mindset of people like him but it's just the same "sigma grindset" bullshit they always spout.

I generally agree with the stance that undercover cops should be allowed to lie, since failing to do so would defeat the purpose of being undercover. However, an officer actively arresting someone using their authority as a police officer should be required to be as truthful as possible with the person detained.

I'll stop saying "defund the police" when "protect and serve" is actually what they do.

I'm totally okay with those people thinking abortion is wrong and not getting then. I'm not okay with it when those people try to force their ideals on my niece or my sister.

I'd be just as not okay with it if the situation was reversed and we were somehow requiring women to get abortions for whatever reason. Just stay the fuck out of people's medical decisions.

This is why I taught my parents to just hit the Win key to open the start menu and just start typing what they want. Usually, that gives them what they want in a couple characters.

The short version is that the creators of this API are doing something more secure than what the client wants to do.

A reasonable analogy would be trying to access a building locked by a biometric scanner vs. a guard looking for a piece of paper with a password on it. In the first case, only people entered into the scanner can get in (this is the cookie scenario). In the second case, anyone with a piece of paper with the right password on it will be let in (this is the Bearer token scenario).

More technical version: the API is made more secure because the "HttpOnly" cookie - which, basically, means the cookie's contents can't be read with JavaScript in the browser - is used to hold the credentials the server is looking for.

By allowing a third party to access the application, this means you have to allow methods that can be set "client-side" (e.g. via JavaScript in a browser). The most common method is in the "Authorization" HTTP Header - headers are metadata sent along with a request, they include things like the page you're coming from and cookies associated with the domain. A "Bearer" token is one of the methods specified by the "Authorization" header. It's usually implemented via passing the authorization credentials prefixed with the word "Bearer" (hence the name) and, often, are static, password-like text.

Basically, because this header has to be settable by a script, that means an attacker/hacker could possibly inject malicious code to steal the tokens because they must, at some point, be accessible.

In this thread, everyone getting caught up on the first toot and not the second where he clarifies his point.

If you step past the initial investment of buying a house, the analogy makes perfect sense. When you rent an apartment, your landlord (the provider) takes care of all the maintenance; you just live there and you get what you get. When you own a home, you take care of all of the maintenance, but you get to set the place up however you like. This isn't that different from a lot of FOSS out there.

Just think of how much back and forth must have happened for this person to be so fed up as to include this with a request for publication

I won't lie. I mostly don't engage with content I see here. I didn't do that when I was on Reddit either and mostly for the same reason: I don't really have much to say and, even when I do have an opinion, I don't usually want to engage in what's often a protracted debate about something that will probably just end up being frustrating.

That's not to say I haven't had positive experiences on the Fediverse - I've had more here than anywhere else - I'm just not particularly motivated most of the time.

Because it's the logical conclusion of mainstream pro-life rhetoric. If one believes that all human life is sacred and must be protected, then it follows that they should want all humans to be safe and protected, not just the ones that are still gestating.

The reality is that, to many of us on the pro-choice side of the debate, pro-life seems to be more about punishing women than it does about protecting (future) children. At the very least, the way many of the pro-life policies are implemented cause direct and sometimes deadly harm to women.

In my mind, if abortion is murder, so is preventing life saving treatment for women. There are times when abortion is medically necessary to protect women's lives and we should allow them to make that choice for themselves.

Parade raining time: https://feddit.de/comment/3373323

1. I believe flags are sorted alphabetically by how they are internally represented. All flags are a combination of two special letter-symbols. For the UK flag, these two symbols are “GB”, therefore the UK flag should be much earlier.
2. 🇺🇸 (Flag of the USA [code: US]) ≠ 🇺🇲 (Flag of the US Outlying Islands [code: UM])

Yes, the first US flag, which most people pick, is actually the flag of the US Outlying Islands. Whenever you see someone use the US flag emoji, check whether they accidentally used the " wrong" one.

I'm not sure where that part of the post comes from. The source says "The judge said he will apppoint(sic) an independent receiver to manage the dissolution of the corporations whose business certificates he canceled." Which I can only take to mean that the judge is doing the appointing, not Trump.