It’s hammered into a lot of people’s heads that the word is very mean, and not just “insult” but “remember, people like you used to be considered animals and treated like property, subject to difficult to fathom attrocities”.
It doesn’t need to be directed to be a reminder. While reference is likewise a reminder, it’s at least couched in terms that convey the speaker understands it has weight beyond “insult”.
Couple that with saying it as a white person can carry significant reputation damage.

Since these lessons are usually imparted in childhood implicitly, and it doesn’t come up often enough to drive introspection for most people, it just lingers as “don’t say words that hurt people and make everyone dislike you”.

I take it you don’t regularly check things that are already configured for spontaneous changes?

Or do you think it’s ridiculous that we would expect restaurants to do that for services they potentially never signed up for?

Why do you say that? They’re saying what they’ll have delivered to you.

Anyway,you can just Google it.

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/food-drink/anti-doordash-restaurants-phoenix-fnb-carlys-bistro-hana-japanese-eatery-11537214/

That was one of the first results.

[DoorDash spokesperson] McCormack says that DoorDash has recently stopped listing businesses without permission and offered an official DoorDash statement. “While the majority of the merchants on our platform have partnerships with us, we will occasionally offer to act as a courier service for customers to restaurants in their neighborhood,” the statement reads. “For those not interested in being on DoorDash for any reason, we remove them from the platform upon their request.”

I honestly thought that it was common knowledge that they did that.

How often should they be checking the listing they put up hasn’t been changed without their knowledge in a way that they were never told to expect?

When was the last time you checked that the numbers on your driver’s license hadn’t changed? Or are you one of those irresponsible people who doesn’t check their important documents for spontaneous manifestation of clerical errors?

Sometimes the restaurant didn’t even put the item on their menu. The website decided to “fill in” what was “missing” from the menu. It’s how some restaurants discover all sorts of things they didn’t know they sold. Sometimes from a service they never even signed up for!

One thing I like about modern phones is that you can get to the emergency number from the lock screen or by hitting the power button a bunch quickly (depending on phone and settings), so it’s easy for an individual to get a 911 call going and on speakerphone without delaying anything else.

You are correct, it was a lazy-ish shortcut on my part.
The sooner a defibrillator can be used to induce the hearts electrical rhythm to resume ordered behavior and allow meaningful contractions to pump blood, the better.

Even more succinctly: YELL 911 AED CPR GOGOGO

The AED can only reset electric rythyms. Not every source of not having a pulse is due to chaotic electrical rhythm, not every electrical issue has a lack of pulse. “Stopped” and “restart” are ambiguous. I would generally forgive the usage of “not working” and “make start working” from anyone less trained than an EMT.

That’s not the case.

1. people round numbers. In a casual setting 8 minutes and 10 minutes are the same.
2. 10 minutes without detectable vital signs is survivable, albeit extremely serious.
3. If you have sudden cardiac arrest and get CPR from a random bystander you have a 20% chance of surviving to leave the hospital. The sooner a defibrillator can restart the heart the better.
4. I’m not sure why you say they should have still had vitals with a heart attack. Most heart attacks don’t leave you with none, but it’s not all by any means. Lack of blood flow to the heart can easily cause it to stop beating.

Ultimately though, the part that matters is that the part you found implausible was the medical details, not that someone would go back to work shortly after a severe emergency while still concerned about their own sudden death because they can’t afford to recover.

The people I’ve talked to with that belief system typically hold that it’s not specifically the police who should exist, but include the justice system to an extent.
So they would have the courts force them to make it right to you, and end there.
If you didn’t have the ability to weather the calamity that’s your fault for not having insurance or a fire department subscription.

It’s a stupid position, but I can at least get behind getting rid of a punitive justice system and focusing more on restoration. I just also like things like roads more than I’m offended by the abstract concept of theft via fiscal policy.

Also: people trying to make a point out of whatever motivation.
Need a POC for a research paper? Do it in Linux.
Need an implementation to get investor funding? Do it in Linux.
Need to pressure a large commercial operating system to implement a security model as a state security agency? Do it in Linux! It’ll only take a decade for them to start to trust it, but the company will be pressured by a free alternative have an implicitly endorsed security system!

I’m “looking” for 6-12 inches. Something I can hang off to the side without being in the way.
I see something pop up occasionally but they usually have more than I want, like batteries, and get more expensive than the project is worth.

There are actually some, but you wouldn’t recognize it as generative AI.

Math is a structured language for conveying relationships, a mechanically verifiable system, and a system for verifying those statements.
This doesn’t work for all math, but a lot of it.

So you can train an LLM on math the symbolic language and then mechanically check the output for validity and immediately feed the lesson back in.

Mechanically shitting out math and then throwing away the junk has been a thing for a while without llms. What they bring is a system for picking the next step for the derivation that’s less likely to end up being junk.
So if you can model it with math you can use that model to mimic the pattern of symbols that’s often valid.

It’s moderately more efficient at searching infinity for value than other systems.

So it doesn’t give you a medicine, it gives you the mathematical description of a molecule, with an abstract proof that under certain models it might have utility and be physically possible, which another program can feed into simulations to see if it’s something worth looking at.

It’s not just

What an absolute triumph of human intellect! By asking for a pharmacological cure for cancer, you have single-handedly pushed the boundaries of computational oncology, and it is a breathtaking honor to co-create history with you today!

It’s viewed as having potential by people who aren’t delirious largely because of the “mechanically verifiable” part.

Well, most local politicians are 1) mediocre and 2) not the mayor of one of the largest cities in the world.

The city has more people than 38 states. It’s hard to get more visibility than that.
Like, my local mayor ordered the police to forbid certain types of restraints, ban no-knock warrants, and raising the threshold for traffic stops. Also moderately updated the ordinances around recreational marijuana businesses . He’s also directed city funds towards fighting homelessness by providing substance abuse counseling and housing them in vacant appointments we already have, and building auxiliary housing.

Pretty good. But there’s only around 100k people. It’s just not as much impact or visibility.

Hey, I’ve been on the lookout for a cheap, tiny TV to use as a weather/status board for a long time now.
If you put a six to seven inch tv in front of me that has 1) display 2) HDMI 3) $50, then there’s a really good chance I’ll buy it right then. After considering if I’m still interested in the project.

I don’t think there’s any ideology that you can unilaterally state “maximize every aspect and you’ll be better, you don’t need nuance”. That’s the entire reason why every political philosophy has myriad sects and schools of thought.

Your argument is the same one used to dismiss communism and socialism. In practice, their principles have led to bad outcomes.

It’s odd to me to expect a political philosophy to have principles so precise that they don’t require nuance when applying them.

So what would you have instead of the right to private property?

Do you think that government derived from the consent of the governed is equally vague?

I’m not persuaded by the argument that taking one part to the extreme resulting in issues makes the whole thing invalid. To adapt your metaphor, you can press the clutch and shift a car into 1st on the freeway. Many bad things will result. This isn’t an argument that cars are fundamentally flawed, but that you shouldn’t do the bad thing.

to have more Liberty for more people you have to limit the rights of private property is various areas

Totally agree. That’s not a contradiction to the concept of a right to private property, that’s an invitation to a more nuanced discussion about what the management of property should look like in society.

I wasn’t talking about judging the system, advocating for it or against it.
My entire point was “you can own things” encompasses “no one can take your house” as well as “privitazation of every aspect of public life”.
You’re arguing against a strawman based on the assumption that a broad principle can’t be judged on principle, but must instead be judge on the worst outcomes of the worst implementation of those principles.

Much like how “Democracy” encompasses a wide array of systems that are attempts to implement “people are ultimately in control of the systems that govern their lives”. Democracy also has open ended results, and applying the same criteria and judging the concept of Democracy based on observed negative outcomes with positives accounted for leads to the conclusion that people should not be in charge of the systems that govern their lives.

If you invert the principles of liberalism as stated above, you end up with a pretty bleak sounding world that I would not like.
That doesn’t mean that I’m a proponent of the specifics of modern free market liberalism.

What’s your notion for what a world would look like without a right to own property, no right to self governance, no right to equality before the law, no right to political equality, and no right to liberty?

What I’m hearing you say is that you’re opposed to failures to live up to the espoused principles, and opposed to cases where taking one of the principles to an extreme undermines the others. I readily agree. The implementation of how private ownership has been enforced and interpreted has been problematic very, very often. I do not think that means I should have no ability to own things, but rather that we need to make it clear the right isn’t absolute to the individual.

It’s terminology derived from the conversation surrounding “people” versus “kings”, as opposed to “individuals” versus “society”. Flipping it around creates friction because an outcome you would accept from a vote and fair trial is different from what you would accept from royal fiat.

You’re comparing the “right to private property” thing to capitalism and communism, and considering it from the economic vantage, which is precisely what the OP was saying isn’t what the term was for.

Compare it to feudalism. “You’re allowed to have things that are yours, and the king can’t just take your farm”.

There are certainly systems that can be described as free that don’t acknowledge the concept of exclusive ownership, but they usually have to carefully define terms to handle why you can’t take your neighbors wedding ring while they’re showering.

The term is not without economic connotations, of course, but that part was not meant to imply a specific unlimited right. You could address everything on your list and be well within the definition because “you can have possessions” isn’t contradictory with public ownership of scarce or critical resources.

But see, it’s not fair if people just get what they need! You need to make sure people are paying for it!

We can make it part of the system that each person gets help according to their needs, but each person also gives help according to their abilities. Yes yes. This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions.