Formally.
cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
Formally.
Right, so why are you editorializing the title to say something that the article in fact does not say?
The title is a copy+paste of the first sentence of the third paragraph, and it is not misleading unless you infer “exploding batteries” to mean “exploding unmodified batteries”. But, the way the English language works, when you put explosives inside an XYZ, or do something else which causes an XYZ to explode, it becomes an “exploding XYZ”. For example:
The fact that bombs are explosive is not revolutionary or all that interesting.
That fact also is not what the article is about.
Of course not, what did you expect?
I encourage you to, it’s pretty interesting.
Since apparently many people aren’t reading the article: It is about how cheap it actually is (eg $15,000) to buy a complete production line to be able to manufacture batteries with a layer of nearly-undetectable explosives inside of them, which can be triggered by off-the-shelf devices with only their firmware modified.
Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
What if there were an outside force that was attacking students/university
That happened at UC Los Angeles a few months ago; the university police chief and 19 of his officers stood by and watched the attacks for over 3 hours before intervening: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/05/11/ucla-protests-police-inaction-fights/
UC Merced annual training required only 7 rounds, while UC San Francisco used 7000 and UC Santa Barbara used 9000 🤔
Shoutout to UC Davis for having the only police department on the list who “did not use any military equipment during this timeframe”.
For some reason the linked PDF varies from the screenshot in several ways, though most of the numbers are the same. (UC Riverside’s number of rounds of .556-range ammunition used in training is 3000 in the screenshot but 6000 in the PDF now.)
I was curious how much this launcher costs:
… over here I see this glorified paintball gun is normally $2400 but currently on sale for just $1850.
Ads?! in Ubuntu? Never! They were simply “integrating online scope results into the home lens of the dash” 🤡
(that is an actual quote from the sentence immediately following “We’re not putting ads in Ubuntu” in Mark Shuttleworth’s blog post responding to the entirely predictable backlash after they did this, twelve years ago…)
(my contribution to lemmy’s beans arc)
That label is there because I’m subscribed to XBlock Screenshot Labeller and it misclassified this image. (You can find here and here more info about how labelers in ATP work…)
i hope you’re joking but if you’re not i assume you live in the bay area? if you want to go to their pitch tonight, here’s its eventbrite.
democracy dies in dark mode
It’s amazing how so many people here are completely oblivious to sarcasm.
from this commercial, apparently it’s a joke but also a real product from Daily Wire 😬
adding all compiled file types including .pyc to .gitignore would fix it
But in this case they didn’t accidentally put the token in git; the place where they forgot to put *.pyc
was .dockerignore
.
At my workplace, we use the string @nocommit to designate code that shouldn’t be checked in
That approach seems useful but it wouldn’t have prevented the PyPI incident OP links to: the access token was temporarily entered in a .py
python source file, but it was not committed to git. The leak was via .pyc
compiled python files which made it into a published docker build.
wikipedia articles about him have been deleted twice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_directory