In reality? Like anyone else.

As a costume?

The not-puerto-rican editor of the magazine bon appetit went to a Halloween costume dressed as a caricature of a Puerto Rican with his also not Puerto Rican wife.
It came into my head as an example of something less obviously problematic than blackface, but more obviously problematic than dressing as a Disney character that’s a depiction of a different race.

Feel free to substitute any other ethnicity or race into my example as it makes sense to you.

Incredibly generally: gender is the expression of gender identity and is a social construct while gender identity seems to be largely influenced by biological factors. Sex is the biological differentiation, and while the delineation between the sexes is culturally defined (if someone has xxy sex chromosomes, high testosterone, a penis, and a vagina it’s a cultural decision if we say they’re male, female or intersex), it’s a classification based much more on observable factors.

Race and ethnicity are more akin to sex than to gender identity, which would be better compared to cultural identity.
What distinguishes races is a social construct, but within a context racial classifications are relatively consistent. Racial markers that mean nothing in the US might be quite significant in Rawanda.
Similarly ethnicity, being a blend of race, language, culture and heritage is socially constructed but relatively objective within a context.
Culture on the other hand is, like gender identity, more to do with subjective feelings, opinions, and choices on the part of the individual, with the distinctions between them being cultural.

The woman in question mislead people about her race and ethnicity by misidentifying her relatives and heritage. Her cultural affiliation is harder to dispute, although being a chapter president for the NAACP shows at least a degree of acceptance by the African American culture in the area.

What “idiots complaining about cultural appropriation”? It’s not exactly a common thing, despite what caricatures of them might make you think. No one is getting upset that anyone eats food from another culture.

The only actual examples I can think of that I’ve actually heard discussed are “please don’t dress as my race as a costume, it’s basically blackface” and “my religion was systematically driven to the brink of extinction, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use it as a fun activity to express your creativity”.

These things always seem chock full of getting defensive about something that doesn’t really happen, or acting like the smallest pushback to the dominant culture doing whatever they want is incredibly terrible.
Appropriation isn’t an issue when it’s just cultures sharing. It’s an issue when people reduce the culture to the things in question, forget that there’s actually people involved who deserve respect, or outright claim ownership of the thing in question.

Don’t go to a Halloween party dressed as a Puerto Rican. Don’t grab a random assortment of native American religious practices, mix them with crystals and use it to showcase your creativity.

I’ve found my preferences have been creeping up in price again, but only because I’ve found I want an actually physically lightweight laptop, and those have been getting more available, linux-able and capable.

I only need a few hundred dollars worth of computer, and anything more can live on a rack somewhere. I’ll pay more than that for my computer to be light enough I don’t need to think about.

I feel like if we get to that point, we’ve given up on the constitution. “He can’t run for president because he’s term limited, but he’s still eligible to be president, therefore we can make him vice president so the president can resign and he can be president” is such an abuse of the term “eligible” where you turn “cannot be elected but otherwise good to go” into “eligible to be in the highest elected office in a Democratic government”.

If the way it’s written isn’t clear cut enough then the court would find a way to say anything wasn’t clear cut.

D’oh. I only thought the rest of the comment and then submitted as it was because I needed to go find the text to copy.

And from the 12th amendment:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

You can only be elected president twice. If you serve more than two years of someone else’s term you can only be elected once. If you can’t be president you can’t be vice president.

So if you’re elected once, then serve as VP and the president goes away and you serve as president for 2 years and a day, you’ve already been elected once so you can’t run again, and you can’t be VP because you can’t be the president.
If you’ve been elected twice you can’t be VP, so you can’t get any extra time that way.

His argument has legal inconsistencies. It’s been soundly rejected by every authority with any say in the matter, so … You’re entirely correct. If his argument were to be accepted, then he couldn’t be president.

A legal argument being rejected also rejects the parts that would harm the person making it, as well as the parts that would help them.

It’s like a person in prison yelling that they’re innocent. You can say what you want, but the decision has already been made.

It actually does.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

(Edited to add) And from the 12th amendment:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

You can be elected twice and you can serve for no more than 10 years total.

Paranoia in the sense of being concerned with the ill intent of others, not the sense of an irrational worry about about persecution. Much like how the intelligence community itself is said to have institutional paranoia.

While they created a set of patches that would implement the security features that selinux provides, what was actually merged was the result of several years of open collaboration and development towards implementing those features.

There’s general agreement that the idea that the NSA proposed is good and an improvement, but there was, and still is, disagreement about the specific implementation approaches.
To avoid issues, an approach was taken to create a more generic system that selinux would then take advantage of. That’s why selinux, app armor and others can live side by without it being a constant maintenance and security nightmare. Each one lives in their little self contained auditable boxes, and the kernel just makes the “check authorization” function call and it flows into the right module by configuration.

The Linux community was pretty paranoid about the NSA in 2000, so the code definitely got a lot more scrutiny than the typical proposal.

A much easier way to introduce a backdoor would be to start a tiny company that produces some arbitrary piece of hardware which you then add kernel support for.

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/drivers/input/keyboard - that’s just the keyboard drivers.

Now you’re adding code to the kernel and with the right driver and development ability you can plausibly make changes that have non-obvious impacts, and as a bonus if someone notices, you can just say “oops!” And not be “the god-damned NSA” who everyone expects to be up to something, and instead be 4 humble keyboard enthusiasts with an esoteric set of lighting and input opinions like are a dime a dozen on Kickstarter.

You wouldn’t phrase it like that. Android is based on Linux, and selinux is part of the Linux security subsystem. Android makes use of selinux features, among others, for security sandboxing.

I think part of it’s that not all propaganda is bad.

There’s probably a term for it, but I’d draw a distinction between “opinion” propaganda and “aspirational” propaganda.

One tries to change your opinion of something, like “cops are good noble and always do the right thing”.
The other encourages the viewer to live up to some ideal. It’s entirely possible for that ideal to also not be great, but even then “I should be” is better than “they are”.

A lot of PSAs and things from the ad council fall in the later category. Like the billboards that basically say “real men are present and emotionally available fathers to their children” or "good parents teach their kids healthy diet and exercise by example”.
They’re openly cases of the government trying to change public opinions or attitudes (which arguably makes them better examples of propaganda than a lot of commercial television), but they don’t feel as objectionable.

“This honest and kind man who always tries to do good and help those around him to the point that it overshadows him being a physically perfect human is the embodiment of the emblematic American man” is more in that aspirational category.

I would lean towards no. I’m me. I don’t consider the things that people seem to associate with their “inner child” to be exclusive to children, so I don’t feel a tension between my desire to act responsibly and my sense of wonder, joy, and playfulness.

Age isn’t a mask hiding the inner child, it’s a toolkit that helps them appreciate and engage with those things. My childish delight at birds flitting about the bird feeder is only enhanced by being able to buy my own, keep them filled, and the ability to understand more about everything that goes on with them. I have the experience and faculties to answer questions I have, which only deepens my appreciation for the “common” wonders we see everywhere. Experiencing more of life and it’s lows only makes the highs sweeter.

A child plus age and experience is an adult. You don’t need to lose the happiness to get there.

You need to think about what a backdoor looks like for different devices, and different functions of that device. “Backdoor” generally means a way to bypass security measures, but that entails can vary wildly in different contexts. For some things you can know because you can check to see if the hardware is doing what’s expected because the only meaningful backdoor would be local to the hardware.
For example, hardware based encryption systems can have their outputs compared against a trusted implementation of the same algorithm.

For cases where there isn’t an objective source of truth for “proper functioning”, or where complex inputs are accepted and either produce a simple answer (access granted/denied), or a complex behavior (logging login attempts and network calls are always expected) it can be harder to the point of impossibility to know that what’s being done is correct.
This is also the case for bugs, so it can actually be unclear if something is a backdoor or an error.
“Any sufficiently hair brained programming error is indistinguishable from an attack by a nation state threat actor”. (the goto fail bug is a great example of this. extremely dumb error every programmer has made, or a very well executed and sophisticated attack.

Ultimately, any system can be compromised by a sufficiently determined attacker. Security cannot be perfect, because at some point you need to trust someone.
The key is to decide how much you trust each system to handle whatever you need it to handle.
I trust my phone’s manufacturer as much or more than I trust the network provider. If I’m doing something naughty the person I’m communicating with getting snagged leads to me via the network and their device without needing to compromise my hardware. I choose to focus on the weak link: the people I talk with who might be unable to properly conduct a criminal conspiracy, and getting them up to speed.

I figured it was more about fresh snow. :) fresh snow in the city is at least white, and pretty in a … Chaotic sense.

If it’s not snowing, it’s still not green. It’s just grey. Grey is worse because at least the snow is pretty.

I mean, I just read through the platform of the Canadian conservative party and they’re pretty left by US standards.

True, but in the modern era so is aluminum, and I would have expected essentially everywhere to have updated by now since we’re more than a century into knowing lead and food don’t mix.

Like I said, there are lawsuits and there should be, because a business is ultimately responsible for what it sold and who it chose to do business with to a fundamentally higher standard than an individual is.
The consumer facing businesses can turn around a sue their suppliers to continue the chain.

Finding they destroyed documentation that they knew something would indeed be a pretty big smoking gun. There’s no real reason to think that they did though, since the businesses in question aren’t actually making any money off of it or in a position to benefit. They actually loose money by having to pull stock and destroy it.

In at least one case, we know which company added the lead and which potentially knew about it, they’re just in Ecuador.

Also, felony murder requires that you have intent to commit a criminal act. As written, not necessarily as applied, it would apply if you agreed to drive to a gas station robbery and your passenger killed someone. If you just agree to give someone a ride and then they kill someone you’re not culpable, assuming you said “oh hell no” and then didn’t continue to give them a ride post-murder.