I always thought of the polyjuice to be a restricted substance, that you can't easily buy. And making it yourself is not easy and takes like 2 months. That would severily limit the cases. I mean, like how often do school kids in our world put drugs in food or drinks of their classmates? I'm sure there are some cases, but probably nothing wide spread
lucullus
joined 2 years ago
To be fair: With Dumbledoors measures with the mirror of erised they had kind of a trap. The philosophers stone obviously hidden behind some challenges, that are not really that strong, so an attacker would think the last one would also be easy. But there you only got the stonen if you didn't want to use itn ruling out people with nefarious intentions (Dumbledoor didn't know about Voldy in Quirrel at that time). To bad some first graders thought they needed to safe the stone. Quirrel would have been still thereuwhen Dumbledoor arrived, but Harry gave him and Voldy the opportunity to get the stone from him instead from the mirror. A bit of captain hindsight here. He maybe should have thought of that. Or maybe it is understandable that he didn't foresee Harry fucking Potter
Surely not relevant in this case, but in the german novel "The 13 1/2 lives of Captain Bluebear" (by Walter Moers) a Bollock is a giant, very dumb creature (as in multiple km high), who at some point in his life takes his head of, puts it on the ground and spends the next centuries searching for his head. I think that is funny.
It did improve my experience though. And after a good chuckle I will move back the the other side of the moon, where I apparently live
This would be easily mitigated by the keyfob using a rolling code. The attacker can record the signal, so the car will also have received it. A replay of that specific code won't work again. That is a principle used in cheap garage door fobs for many years. So I guess keyless fobs would have at least that level of security.
Better would be a cryptographic encryption using public/private key (already done in chip cards, so common technology). Though - looking at the dumb things car manufacturers did - I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't use private/public keys for this.
The OP doesn't say that they have a trademark. For me it sound as they don't have one. Only a registered domain and the name of the software on github. The letter came on the grounds of the oponnents trademark.
In the way it is phrased I would second this. The problem is, that it faults the disabled person for the life problem of those around them (THEY are ruining other peoples life). The discourse never ever blames the disabled person here. Doing so will land you in a bad discussive corner - together with the common argumentation of nazis. Though the question of abortion (as stated by OP) is not as clear cut.
Ah, so it is just a case of a specific definition of "state". What are the attributes of a state in that definition (as they do not include "the Administration of Things)? Goes totally against my intuition with that word
Maybe you can clarify for me, as I'm not knowlegeble in Marxism: When the state withers away, what is the central organisation called, that manages the means of production? I thought that would also be called functions of a state. Thanks
Drawing clear boundaries for yourself is a good thing and has nothing to do with narcissism. They are about what is important to you. Disagreement over such boundaries can mean the end of the relationship, for the better.
Though it sounds like you are somewhat overcompensating in some areas due to your family experiences (I might be wrong in that). A serious relationship also means meeting the partners needs. If you draw the boundaries so hard to rule out any compromise, then dating will be very difficult, maybe impossible. So you need to be clear with yourself of what is really important and where you can compromise.
Your examples are very different. First its about "doing something" for her, which is too vague to answer. Might be anything. Just using the phrase "Do it for me" is not manipulative in my view. It might be something that is important for her. If you can compromise on that, why not meeting her need? If not, then communicate it and the reasons clearly. If thats a problem for her, the relationship can still just end.
Then its about keeping contact with your family or potentially nursing your parents. That seems to be a hard (and probably healthy) boundary for you. She should accept that. Though talking about it in a non-pressuring way is ok.
And the last two examples are these low stakes situations, where probably the communication is going wrong. These are easily solvable without much drama, by compromising (and yes, ording from different restaurants or having one person cook while the other orders is also a compromise). Do you know the 4 sides of a message? I think it is a quite important concept about communication, since sometimes the anger or sadness, that you her from your partner are not really about what they are saying. Human communcation can be quite complex.
With AI you can easily correct? Who would correct the AIs? The people who don't know what they want? Or some other party who knows even less, what the people want? And how would you personally correct without making up your mind by yourself about something? And how would society correct the overarching AI, which probably had used all peoples AI to train? Who would do this with what indentions and biases? Just seems to hide the problems under an AI carpet, creating even more problems.
I always cringe with the 7th book, where the trio is hiding and searching for horkruxes, and for some weird reason they don't have enough food and are constantly hungry. From the reading perspective I understand, that the hunger is a device to generate conflict and make their time hard to endure, but it always baffles me.