> it's seemingly impossible to have a single thread about something like this that isn't almost entirely negative or political bickering
After the resurrection of Twitter, the conservative-leaning contingent left for X. This place was left to the miserable left, and as you would expect, is now mostly intolerable.
I got pulled aside because I absentmindedly showed them my concealed carry permit, not my driver's license. I told them I was a consultant working for their local government and was going back to Austin. No harm no foul.
If the system used any kind of logic whatsoever a CCW permit would not only allow you to bypass airport security but also carry in the airport (Speaking as both a pilot and a permit holder)
Would probably eliminate the need for the TSA security theater so that will probably never happen.
You can carry in the airport in AZ without a permit, in the unsecured areas. I think there was only one broo-ha-ha because some particularly bold guy did it openly with a rifle (can't remember if there's more to the story).
The point of the security theater is to assuage the 95th percentile scared-of-everything crowd, they're the same people who want no guns signs in public parks.
Right from the beginning it was a handout to groups who built the scanning equipment, who were basically personal friends with people in the admin. We paid absurd prices for niche equipment, a lot of which was never even deployed and just sat in storage.
Several of the hijackers were literally given extended searches by security that day.
A reminder that what actually stopped hijackings (like, nearly entirely) was locking the cabin door, which was always doable, and has not ever been breached. Not only did this stop terrorist hijackings, it stopped more casual hijackings that used to be normal, it could also stop "inside man" style hijackings like that one with a disgruntled FedEx pilot, it was nearly free to implement, always available, harms no one's rights, doesn't turn airport security into a juicy bombing target, doesn't slow down an important part of the economy, doesn't invent a massive bureaucracy and LEO in the arms of a new american agency that has the goal of suppressing domestic problems and has never done anything useful. Keep in mind, shutting the cockpit door is literally how the terrorists themselves protected themselves from being stopped and is the reason Flight 93 couldn't be recovered.
TSA is utterly ineffective. They have never stopped an attack, regularly fail their internal audits, the jobs suck, and they pay poorly and provide minimal training.
You're right not a lot of people objected to TSA ending the no shoes safety rule, and it's a shame. I certainly objected and tried to make my objections known, but apparently 23 or 24 years of the iconic custom of taking shoes off went to waste because the TSA decided to slack off
Also happy to be wrong, but in Postges clients, parametrized queries are usually implemented via prepared statements, which do not work with DDL on the protocol level. This means that if you want to create a role or table which name is a user input, you have a bad time. At least I wasn’t able to find a way to escape DDL parameters with rust-postgres, for example.
And because this seems to be a protocol limitation, I guess the clients that do implement it, do it in some custom way on the client side.
Just like we know how to make C safe (in theory), and many other cases in the industry.
The problem is that solutions don't exist, rather the lack of safety culture that keeps ignoring best practices unless they are imposed by regulations.
This doesn't say anything about the protocol other than what would be obvious (a JSON card describing the agent's schema) and that it will use http (such a safe, but low-effort bet). I was hoping for more, but with so many cooks in the kitchen, I guess I'm not surprised.
What do you mean? Who is the intermediary in this context? Google? The threat that people will use LLMs to get their fake information without needing to use google to find sites with fake reviews?
If you really want to be pedantic, "from hoi polloi" is incorrect, because it does not use the correct Greek declension to go with a "from" preposition.
The normal thing to do in that case is to ignore the parts that are just artifacts of the other language, so you'd say "the polloi". (Or, really, you'd say "the many"; it's not an esoteric concept.)
If you read older translations of mythology, you'll see that inflectional endings for foreign nouns are just left off, so you have e.g. Jormungand instead of Jormungandr and Thor instead of Thorr. (It's true for history too, where we prefer Virgil to Vergilius and Ovid to Ovidius.) Recently there's been some kind of fetish for including foreign artifacts in borrowed words, even when those words are already well established without them.
I kind of get the sense that this kind of thing is driven by people who think that learning a foreign alphabet is the same thing as learning a foreign language.
"The hoi polloi" is a fixed phrase in English. Its etymology is irrelevant. We don't pronounce it "properly" either. Thay is because it isn't Greek! It is English. It has Greek origins but it was long ago borrowed into English and now follows English rules. ~Everyone knows "hoi" means "the" in Greek. But the phrase in English is "the hoi polloi". It is never found except as "the hoi polloi". If you said "Hoi polloi are upset" in real life people would look at you funny. There are loads of other examples of this happening. For example there are various verbs and adjectives from Latin that have been borrowed as nouns into English. If you go "uhm actually that is a verb in Latin actually" you are annoying and wrong. Language evolves.
Showing off your education is oftentimes used to signal high status. That often fails. You can of course argue with the OED:
Hoi is the Greek word for the, and the phrase hoi polloi means ‘the many.’ This has led some traditionalists to insist that hoi polloi should not be used in English with the, since that would be to state the word the twice. But, once established in English, expressions such as hoi polloi are typically treated as fixed units and are subject to the rules and conventions of English.
Disclaimer: I'm one of the οἱ ὀλίγοι from the colonies, so the only thing I was learnt is baaaaaaa.
Fellow Kiwi? The tone of your comment makes it sound to me like you disagree with me but I agree with everything you are saying.
I am usually a traditionalist but on this one I think the tradition to follow is the English one. I prefer the traditional English pronunciation of Latin (so "caveat" is "kay-vee-it"). Hell, I would prefer if we still nativised foreign loanwords and names: Saint Peter wasn't called "Peter" obviously, but I don't speak Greek or Aramaic or whatever. Peking isn't what the Chinese call it but neither is "Bayzhing" which is how English people pronounce Beijing, and so on. Plus now "Peking duck" doesn't make any sense...
From Christchurch. I was attempting to take the mick out of myself actually. I'm so humble.
Opinions on language are often subconscious status signaling. And too often people incorrect other people with the pretentions of displaying intelligence but actually displaying ignorance (oooooo judgy!). I fight the tendency within myself.
We end up with a half-assed attempt to be cultured for subconscious reasons, and it is often unappreciated by others.
I have become a weird rotator.
> Peking
My examples are Cristóbal Colón (Christophorus Columbus) and Pirata Drake (I didn't understand who it was when I first heard it). I've wondered how English names get mashed in Asian languages (especially Mandarin).
Did you notice the Wikipedia entry:
there is also widespread spoken use of the term in the opposite sense to refer denigratingly to elites that is common among middle-class and lower income people in Australia, ...
That calls to my love of the antipodes and I fear I'm going to rewire my brain to discorrect myself.
[for approximations that make sense in English: zhan like "John"; ni like "knee"; fu like "foo", an like "on", si like "sick" without the K at the end of the syllable, dun like... it begins with "dw", the vowel is as in "book", then it ends with N. If pinyin were more regular, dun would be spelled "dwen".]
圣文森特和格林纳丁斯 shèng wén sēn tè hé gé lín nà dīng sī [Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]
[圣 shèng and 和 hé are translations, not sound equivalents, of the English words "saint" and "and".
The vowel "e" in the first six syllables is best approximated by the vowel of the English word "book". As before, the vowel written "i" in "lin" and "ding" is the English FLEECE vowel, and the vowel of "si" is different, more like KIT.
The consonants should be intuitive to you, except that the W in "wen" might sound more like a W or like a V depending on the whims of the speaker.]
> I prefer the traditional English pronunciation of Latin (so "caveat" is "kay-vee-it").
...That's not an example of the traditional English pronunciation of Latin. The traditional English pronunciation of Latin caveat would have /kæ/ (TRAP vowel) in the first syllable, not /keɪ/ (FACE vowel).
> when a vowel is followed by a single consonant (or by a cluster of p, t, c/k plus l, r) and then another vowel [...]
> [such a vowel bearing stress in any syllable other than the penultima] is closed and the vowel is short [unless the vowel is U].
hoi polloi was borrowed into english as a way not only of saying "the masses", but of signalling one's own status above the masses. Another way of signalling such status is to show off one's deeper familiearity with obscure details of foreign languages.
or to put it another way, only hoi polloi say "the hoi polloi"; on this same topic linguists are generally incoherent, so intent are they to repeat yet again "descriptivism doncha know"
I'm aware of that, but it is not typical of borrowed terms. You can't explain the oddity of the phrase by appealing to the idea that that's how foreign terms are borrowed into English, because it isn't.
