If even one person in a repo does not disable this will copilot have full access to the repo? How can I determine if other members of my team have turned this off or not?
I agree with OP, but I don't have a solid reason or precedent. In my case, I get the "high school bully" vibe from the current regime and its militant supporters. Bullies don't like it when a group doesn't fear and adulate them, so I just assume censorship of subcultures is coming soon.
In a merchantilist culture entrepreneurs are not exactly prized. I'll bet the presidential family acquihires a whole lot of small companies.
"U.S. intelligence agencies may now face legal hurdles in directly targeting and collecting personal data on Valencia González because of his place of birth. That risks hindering a significant tactical partnership that has developed between Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Washington that is making increasing use of information provided by U.S. military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies."
I think the answers (at least as they apply to those R2 units) is much simpler.
R2-D2 happened to be colored blue because that looked right in darkly lit scenes and in contrast to the white and metallics. Not because film makers said. "Hey let's make sure R2-D2 is male".
R2-KT on the other had "feminine programming" including pink accents. Out of universe the creation of R2-KT has a backstory that is heartwarming, tragic, and might help explain why the droid was envisioned the way it was.
I'm guilty of upvoting that and in fact I did not even read it. Here is the thing though. I'm older, not 60 but older for a coder and the sentiment in the title alone resonates with me. If I upvoted it then I can see many others doing so. Is it worth 600 points? I dont know but it was worth 1 from me.
Ebay? MySpace, Usenet? Though the distinction was about features and adoption not about ethics. Back then it was assumed that tech owners (to the extent that something like Usenet had owners) acted ethically.
Google's motto of "dont be evil" was mostly tongue in cheek until of course it wasn't and then they stopped using it.
This is tech though and the idea that one company might have an ethical marketing advantage is much older. For example when I worked for GM we often talked about being like GE only with a heart.
> This is tech though and the idea that one company might have an ethical marketing advantage is much older. For example when I worked for GM we often talked about being like GE only with a heart.
Great visualizations but you can't buy a shoe without knowing that a 10 in one brand is not a 10 in a second brand or that for example you need to size down when ordering Dr. Martens then there is no way to expect clothing to be more accurate than a shoe.
Sure, not every shoe brand is equal, but if I know I'm a 9, I can generally start there and find a shoe plus/minus a half size. I have yet to go into a store and wind up in a shoe that is 3 sizes larger than what I thought my size was. Or 3 sizes smaller. Or a size 8 in one shoe from a brand and a 10 different shoe. I can order Nike/Jordan brand shoes without trying them on and they fit. Have done it for years.
I went to re-buy the "same" jeans ~8 months after my initial purchase and the size I was wearing didn't fit in the new jeans. Tried another pair with a different wash and was back to the original size. I have tried on jeans from the same brand with similar cuts and came away two sizes apart. I can swing several sizes as a starting point between some stores. I get it, not every jean is going to be identical, but it isn't a ridiculous ask to be able to have a size I can start at and be within a size of what I need.
Anecdotally, I discovered recently that I’m a full three sizes down in Vivobarefoot shoes versus normal shoes — but for a really interesting reason. It turns out that modern runner’s shoes actually are often shaped like a foot, rather than like a spatula, and so now that I don’t have to size up for my toebox width thanks to them creating shoes that are foot shaped in disregard to fashionable propriety, I now fit much better into a 3-sizes smaller shoe than I did into their older shoes at my prior size.
Part of why retailers are afraid to change sizing is that lots of women install their clothing into their ego and brag about it socially. I don’t approve, but I recognize the extrinsic cultural circumstances* that pressure them to do so. It’s a a lot harder to brag about being a size 49-42-48–8-30 than it is to brag about being a 20UK. (The /22 in 20/22 UK, the common size these days, is silent, because size lying is normalized.)
It would make more sense instead for them to choose an anchor measurement and a body type modifier; but that gets into the problems of having to annotate nine different body type letters onto a numeric size, not to mention having to design clothing that looks good on nine different body types, and having to hire models of nine different body types. The modeling industry is unprepared to staff that need, too!
* The phrase “pinup-hourglass male-gaze body-shape imposed-ideal” serves as an excellent starting point for research on that nightmare. For those unfamiliar, ask your friends who are women about that exact phrase, and remember to listen rather than critique their potentially-lengthy reply. I’m focusing on the sizing discussion and leave that topic as an exercise for the reader.
I've collected size charts for every shoe model across 200 brands and found that it's not uncommon for any given size to vary +-1.5 sizes (a range of 3 sizes total). And that's size charts from manufacturers.
Many online stores use outdated or outright wrong sizes charts. One of Europe's largest online retailers don't even bother providing official manufacturer size charts at all. They have one generic size chart for almost all of the shoes, so it's pretty much down to the consumer to return and retry. Kind of crazy state of things.
reply