ignirtoq

Can't download on Firefox for Android. Why does it require a desktop browser?

I think that's actually good UX from a safety standpoint. It means the button is "idempotent": doing an operation the first time puts it in a state, and then doing it again leaves it still in that state.

If you're in a moment of panic and want the brake on, you might push the button a bunch of times in quick succession to "be sure." If it were a regular button, this would rapidly toggle it on and off, which would leave it in an uncertain state after you pressed it so fast. This way it turns on and stays active until you are ready to turn it off, and then you do another idempotent operation to turn it off. I don't think all buttons should be like this, but I think it's a good design decision for a button used in an "emergency."

That strongly depends on the job. If the company has to follow regulations to meet some security posture, wiping the OS (and all the security tools and configuration set up by IT) to put your own favored OS without matching the security requirements could wind up with you getting fired.

put up posters urging customers to "close the door" behind them

Do customers read postings in the UK? Because they certainly don't in the US.

They should install some kind of mechanism to automatically close the door when it's not being held open. If the higher-ups don't want to pay for it, he should calculate how many bags of crisps it would take to pay for it, and then say when Steven has been prevented from stealing crisps for X days it will have paid for itself.

Language is magic for these people, specifically the right grouping of words is supposed to be an incantation to get them out of social responsibility, and the wrong collection of words is what binds them.

Since the state regulates "driving" of vehicles, no sovcit drives. They all "move" vehicles or "transport" vehicles.

It's ridiculous, because law revolves around actions independent of how anyone in specific describes those actions, but that's the mindset of these people. Viewing their beliefs as a kind of word Tetris has at least helped me wrap my head around what could possibly give them some of their strange notions of law.

No laws have been changed. Court decisions are not considered the passage of a law, so ex post facto doesn't apply. Changes to how laws are interpreted don't factor into ex post facto considerations.

Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It's basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn't apply here.

Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there's a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court's decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.

https://variety.com/2024/music/news/jack-black-cancels-tenacious-d-tour-trump-assassination-kyle-gass-1236073486/

Jack Black canceled his tour after Kyle Gass made a joke about the Trump assassination attempt.

Yes, I got a paywall.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/JAUUA

The thing about genes is that if there aren't natural selection pressures to keep certain traits, they tend to drift, and traits can change or become entirely non-functional over a surprisingly short time. I would expect, unless there was a concerted effort to maintain the radiation detection trait over those 10,000 years through careful breeding, the cats would lose their radiation triggered appearance change behavior before it actually had a chance to be useful to people.