KamikazeRusher

I’ve jokingly said this before, but just wait until manufacturers start adding 4G/5G to TVs explicitly for ads and telemetry…

One of the articles linked by this one goes into detail how automation has impacted union workers at ports.

An estimated 572 full-time jobs at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were lost in 2020 and 2021 to automation. Meanwhile, profits for the global shipping industry soared during the pandemic to over $190 billion in 2021, as the rate to ship a 40-foot container increased from less than $2,000 in 2019 to as much as $20,000 in 2021

The union is demanding that “no automated or semi-automated” systems be introduced. This will be an interesting strike to watch out for.

Unfortunately this is a product not many care for nor know about, and I had a personal working relationship with this vendor, so even if it were “leaked anonymously” they could point back at me and make things a living hell.

At this point it’s been almost five years. They made their stance known. The exploit isn’t one that can be done completely remote without some internal knowledge to the setup of the equipment. It’s old news and they’re better off fading away in obscurity. I just won’t bother to try helping them make their products better and more secure.

Disclosed responsibly

Received a Cease & Desist order with threat of litigation if released to the public

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh most certainly. I attended BYU Provo and there was a lot of effort from students to allow the sale of caffeinated soda on campus, but the belief was that the university was holding out only because a large number of alumni might stop donating if it were to occur.

(This was more recent though.)

The culture amongst members can and often will have items that seem to go against or misinterpret official doctrine. I don’t disagree that the church would need to reiterate the doctrine to clear that up for people. What I personally don’t know is how often is appropriate for such corrections to take place. If you correct them too often they may choose to not seek out answers themselves but instead wait for a leader to explain it to them, which runs against the teaching of proactive scripture study.

Ok, I should stop there. Starting to nitpick human nature as though I’m any better (and we know that’s not fucking true in the slightest, lol)

One assumes that a god would be able to formulate a standard that can be applied cleanly, to everything, and communicate that clearly to his prophet.

The issue wouldn’t be the god in question, but instead the people.

Consider the fact that Moses was given the Ten Commandments for all the Israelites to follow. They’re incredibly simple and straightforward. Yet there still was a division in how these were observed, which was documented well in the New Testament.

The two most notable (outlined in the New Testament) are the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees can be summarized as a group which added man-made rules or guidelines on top of the established doctrines. Certain stories, such as Christ healing a man on the Sabbath, demonstrate that the intention of a commandment can be forgotten by people who choose to observe by the letter of the law. The Sadducees can be summarized as a group which chose to observe only doctrines that are written. Both groups, however, largely ignored the foundation behind the 10 Commandments.

Christ explains it as simply as can be. Love the Lord above all else, and love they neighbor as you do yourself. The 10 Commandments were already straightforward to begin with, but the two greater commandments set the standard you suggest such a deity should be capable of doing.

Even still, as simple as they can be, the issue often becomes that some people want to be told what exactly they can or cannot do, while others want to justify their actions on the basis of technicality.

All of this to say, the doctrine for the LDS church is based on the idea of obedience towards God. It doesn’t matter why He says to not drink coffee, just that He promises you’ll be blessed if you do. So by virtue of the two greater commandments, loving God means following His instructions. And that alone should be reason enough to do so.

(Mind you, I disagree with how this is often put into practice, as a lot of guilt-tripping occurs for those who choose not to follow these teachings. At its core, these actions are antithetical to Christ’s teachings and examples, which are to love all unconditionally as we are all sinners in the eyes of the Lord. But again, the issue lies with people, who aren’t perfect, rather than the doctrines put forth.)

Like with caffeine specifically they have a long history of forbidding its use and then suddenly they reinterpreted it the way you’re suggesting.

I had to think about this. I can’t seem to find any articles in a quick search where church leaders (a Prophet or Apostle) explicitly forbade its use. I have, however, found many excerpts where leaders who do not sit at the head (Quorum of the Seventy, BIshop, etc) have made statements warning against it or even flat out saying that members should not ingest it.

Given the structure and lack of corrective statements coming from above, I would attribute the confusion to local and regional leaders being overzealous by including caffeine explicitly in their teachings. Some have worded things in a manner I would find accurate, such as “high-dose caffeinated energy drinks” or “excessive soda consumption which results in high caffeine and sugar intake.” Others though explicitly call out caffeine as an “evil,” describing experiences with caffeine withdrawals or members deciding to not ingest alcohol, nicotine, nor caffeine. These mentions seem to have drummed up confusion primarily in the 80s (a lot of “Letter to the Editor” publications from this period seem to have been back-and-forth arguments among members, lol).

Initially I didn’t think the history is as “long” as you claimed, but then I realized that the 80s was just forty years ago, and with some results of the topic dating as far back as the 70s, it would mean it’s been an intra-member debate for almost half a century. And half a century is practically a lifetime 😖

Yeah… unfortunately, confusion about this particular subject exists because members often look for the underlying justification on things and then extrapolate from there.

(I’m going to paraphrase and shorten things a lot here so we don’t have to dive into definitions and technicalities. Bear with me.)

The doctrine brought forth about this is what’s referred to as “The Word of Wisdom,” which was a short outline of what things were deemed as “harmful” or otherwise “unsuitable” for the body. The idea being that the Lord was promising to people that if they didn’t ingest these things, they would live a healthier life as a result. “Hot drinks” was mentioned and clarified a century later to mean “tea and coffee.” Furthermore, “tea” refers to black and green tea, and not necessarily herbal tea.

People, by nature, want to understand the “why” behind things. You also have people who want to understand where the line begins and ends so they can tiptoe it. Enter the rumor that since the “hot drinks” referred to “tea and coffee,” they both have not-so-insignificant amounts of caffeine in them. Obviously that must mean drinks like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, plus foods such as chocolate, must also be in violation of this, right?

Well, the issue with that is people think they’re applying “the spirit of the law” (meaning the larger picture behind it) when they’re actually applying “the word of the law” (taken at face value). The idea behind the Word of Wisdom is to take care of your body by having a balanced diet and not eating too much of a particular thing. Certain items were called out explicitly; if caffeine were the true issue, then it would’ve been called out instead. But it wasn’t, and there have been some clarifications to emphasize that caffeine itself is not the explicit reason behind it. (However the idea of “addiction” could extend to caffeine if someone were to consume large amounts of it regularly, but addiction or dependency can occur even to things like Tylenol when too much is consumed, so targeting it specifically is silly.)

So in short, it’s a mixture of misunderstanding and overzealous practice. Caffeine is perfectly fine. Just like anything else: make sure you’re not consuming too much of it.

Was it rude? I was genuinely curious as I could see a myriad of valid reasons why the introduction or use of these drones are worrisome. I myself am torn over certain aspects of their use and design that drives me to wonder whether or not they may inflict unnecessary suffering. I cannot argue against their efficiency (nor their need), and I believe that Ukraine has every right to defend itself and repel Russia as an invading force, but they brought up a valid point about what the future could hold in using this technology for warfare. I just wanted to understand them, personally, and the reservations that drove their stance on it.

Honestly your reaction and response are completely understandable from where I stand.

I don’t disagree with your argument, but I am curious. Where does your difficulty with the video primarily reside at?

• The ability to delay the explosion to guarantee success (intelligent/controllable)?
• The low-yield explosion, somewhere between hand-grenade and 40mm, which may be more likely to maim than kill on impact?
• The low cost and ease of operation which threatens uncovered infantry?

I can’t imagine the trauma of surviving an attack from one of these. The fear that something might fly in at any moment to chase you around to kill you would be more terrifying than being shot at. Maybe you could defend against it with a shotgun, but if the lower cost meant an adversary can send multiple at each soldier, then it becomes a game of numbers where the soldier is likely to be overwhelmed. Not a future I’d want to witness.

They’ll instead argue that Trump didn’t say that (which is true) and ignore the fact that he agreed to it, possibly even claiming that his agreement wasn’t towards race but instead just being a “horrible” person.