I honestly was wondering if the person also meant things thst are currently illegal when they said adults should be allowed to do "whatever".
Saying "adults should be able to do whatever is legal" is a truism: you are by definition allowed to do anything that is currently legal, so it's pretty pointless to write a message supporting that. Thus, me asking for clarification.
You are the one who stepped into the conversation, told me to join the military, and acted strangly aggressive.
Another poster said that adults shold be allowed to do "whatever".
I asked if this "whatever" includes many things that are currently illegal, even if everyone involved consent to it.
You then told me to ask that question again after serving in the military, and i then told you that I already have served. Then you wrote a long anecdote that I honestly missed the point of.
You telling me that’s justified?
No, I'm not, and I'm not sure why you think I am.
I've already served in the military. What question am I supposed to ask again? Or do I need to re-enlist first? I'm not sure they would accept me at my age anymore.
What educated westerners think matches what people living outside the west think.
Wow, just wow. So we don't actually need to ask e.g indiginous people of their opinions, it's enough to ask "educated westeners". Which century are we living in?
It’s pretty obvious from all the actions the global majority countries have taken that they do in fact support Russia
Is that why they keep codemning Russia in various UN resolutions? The numbers speak for themselves.
It does't matter if educated westeners think Russia is right: that's not what's being discussed. Unless you think the opinions of white westeners like Chomsky override the actual position of poorer countries? "Oh, Chomsky agrees with Russia? Sorry Botswana, you have to also support Russia now, Chomsky said so. Better fire your UN ambassador, they forgot to ask Chomsky what he thought, before voting to condemn Russia".
I haven't heard anything so patronizing and colonoalistic in a long time.
Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a "de facto" member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?
NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous "de facto" members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a "de facto" member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.
Sure If that happens. But it may also not. Which is actually usually the case. Sure, it's not 100% safe, but it is safer.
But then it’s easy to just check an environment variable and skip, if inside Docker.
How is forcing your script to be Docker-aware simpler than just always creating a venv?
Is Yubico actually claiming it is more secure by not being open source?
Why should I provide more sources when you yourself haven’t provided any?
Firstly, if you go back to the beginning of this thread I exactly provide a source that contradicts the original article. So clearly I have provided sources.
Secondly, to paraphrase my mother, "Just because the person you are discussing with is being unproductive, does not mean you have to be". I am trying to understand you, so of course I will try to be productive about it and reach my goal, instead of just being difficult because you are.
Wait, which list of filtered IPs are you even talking about? The list in the article is a list of unique kernel versions, not IPs.