https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2025/12/07/by-reverse-engineering-shahed-drone-us-gives-iran-a-dose-of-its-own-medicine/

Sorry I deleted my post because I was mistaken. I haven’t tried it.

deleted by creator

Desktop: librewolf. I’ve not found anything remotely comparable for Android.

May Israel be razed en toto.

Good idea, but they collect subpoenable data and nag about installing the app. Why do they need my data?

both of you understand you’re not actually expressing gratitude to them for simply doing their job

Then order from DeathsRUs.com

May the rest of your your day/evening/afternoon be as delightful as you!

Fuck. Them.

I think they did away with that rule lol. Plenty of Hindus love cheeseburgers.

Plenty of Buddhists eat meat. Often

In fucking shambles. One of my dreams, if I ever win big on the rarely purchased lotto tickets, is to open a free clinic with free pharmacy, and a private, means-tested Pre-K12 Montessori school that only accepts on the poorest first and donations only buy your name on a plaque.

If you ever needed more proof Thiel is one of the antichrists and USA is the the beast…

That’s part of what I picked as a teaser:

Start with what the GPL actually prohibits. It does not prohibit keeping source code private. It imposes no constraint on privately modifying GPL software and using it yourself. The GPL’s conditions are triggered only by distribution. If you distribute modified code, or offer it as a networked service, you must make the source available under the same terms. This is not a restriction on sharing. It is a condition placed on sharing: if you share, you must share in kind. The requirement that improvements be returned to the commons is not a mechanism that suppresses sharing. It is a mechanism that makes sharing recursive and self-reinforcing. The claim that imposing contribution obligations on users of a commons undermines sharing culture does not hold together logically. The contrast with the MIT license clarifies the point. Under MIT, anyone may take code, improve it, and close it off into a proprietary product. You can receive from the commons without giving back. If Ronacher calls this structure “more share-friendly,” he is using a concept of sharing with a specific directionality built in: sharing flows toward whoever has more capital and more engineers to take advantage of it. The historical record bears this out. In the 1990s, companies routinely absorbed GPL code into proprietary products—not because they had chosen permissive licenses, but because copyleft enforcement was slack. The strengthening of copyleft mechanisms closed that gap. For individual developers and small projects without the resources to compete on anything but reciprocity, copyleft was what made the exchange approximately fair. The creator of Flask knows this distinction. If he elides it anyway, the argument is not naïve—it is convenient.

Marjoram and thyme, maybe bay leaves in white meat/pork dishes.

This really wasn’t on my bingo card for opening of the water wars.

Don’tsayitDon’tsayitDon’tsayit

👽️

Every single billionaire (ETA and techbro), regardless of age, and their children and grandchildren should be on the front lines.

No sulphates

Someone I know who works outside and with chemicals lines the charcoal lime body wash.