admiralteal

It's a pub pint.
There are a lot of beer can sizes.

Imperial, the common ones are

• 24oz (usually only VERY cheap beer)
• 19.2 oz "imperial" pints (often called stovepipes/smokestacks)
• 16oz pints (usually called tallboys, though larger sizes are ALSO often called tallboys)
• 12oz "classic"/standard cans
• and nips (8.4oz) which I don't know the reason they're the size they are.

However, in bar tradition, a "pub" pint is a typical size, which is what this can is -- about 14oz. These happen a lot since they're served in a shaker pint glass that LOOKS like a typical pint glass but has an extra thick bottom that makes those 2oz disappear. The commonness of this style of glass is why so much EU glassware has the mandatory 40cl line.

Metric cans come in a lot more sizes, but as I understand it the standard ones are 330ml, 440ml, and those same 568ml (19.2oz) stovepipes.

The point is, this ridiculous number is a pub pint. Why that can size exists I do not know.

Statistically not true. And even the retail industry lobbyists has started backtracking on the claims.

The only city that has seen an increase in shoplifting in the last ~4-5 years, as I have seen in actual data analysis, is NYC. Everywhere else has seen an overall trend downward.

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/11/shoplifting-retail-data-moral-panic/676185/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/business/shoplifting-retail-crime-stores/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/us-retail-lobbyists-retract-key-claim-organized-retail-crime-2023-12-06/

These narratives are all about trying to make you sympathetic to stores, creating justifications to close poorly-performing locations without suffering PR consequences, and to get the public to invest in security for retail stores so that the stores can save some bottom-line cost. And just regular ol' conservative love of the penal system.

In the raw numbers, shrink in general is not a major issue for retail and shoplifting only makes up a relatively small percent of shrink. It's just a great story to point to and makes great viral videos.

In the US, organic-labeled products typically used way more pesticides than non-organic because organic growing is much more vulnerable to pests. They just need to be approved "organic" pesticides. It's a meaningless label here.

An old municipal right of way that got turned into private property somehow.

People living in those houses should definitely be attempting adverse possession on it.

There's a reason you have organizations like the NLRB, meant to be the "first step" before a labor case goes to a more general trial -- it lets a bunch of people who are actual subject matter experts (in the NLRB's case, labor law experts) be the first pass at reviewing the legal claims before a general court that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about gets involved. It lets you set the tone for the whole ensuing trial process, grounded in understanding and truth.

The average judge doesn't know jack shit about ANYTHING other than the technicalities of the law. Most of them haven't done a real day of work in their life. But being a judge gives you the confidence you need to think your understanding of the technicalities of the law can be applied to just about anything, even something you find utterly baffling outside of the trial.

We really lack a qualified commission or board to be the first pass for these big tech disputes. The FTC is asleep at the wheel. And the result is that our ongoing legal frameworks around these issues continue to be arbitrary, unpredictable court rulings based on random judges' limited understandings and gut instincts. It's a very bad situation.

In a similar vein, that's why the fascists on the Supreme Court are trying so hard to undermine and delete Chevron deference. Because when you want to use the courts to just enforce your preferences and write your own laws, having to appeal to subject matter experts just gets in the way.

Also, Spotify is actively trying to ruin and fragment podcasts by running exclusive content. Fuck them with a rusty rake for trying to ruin one of the last mass interoperable platforms with their walled garden horse shit. Fuck them so much.

Don't use Spotify. Even if they fix the app and make it good, don't use it. They're evil little fuckers. Use literally any other podcast app.

It's not a lie. There's no malicious intent. It's just not even wrong. It so fundamentally lacks understanding of the underlying bureaucracy, technology, product lifecycle, and surrounding politics politics that it amounts to nothing.

And the overall point still stands. We should be skeptical of these kinds of intrusions into our devices from the state. We should resist them as a default posture.

You legitimately do not understand that there are alternatives to YouTube. It's fucking embarrassing.

Give me quality service for what I pay, or I go elsewhere.
Apparently not. You'll keep going there no matter how much you claim to hate them.

And that's no small part of why Google has such market control. Because people like you give it to them enthusiastically.

PS: it's Rumble. That's the actual alternative (with a HEAVY emphasis on the "alt" in "alternative") you could use to watch Rossmann if you really are so passionate about how bad Google is. Plus Rossmann also is one of the cofounders of GrayJay.

Not that you're asking for an argument, but I do want you to know why I, and many like me, find this whole life-from-conception argument totally ethically unpersuasive. And it's not the usual nonsense of "it's just cells" because, as you well know, that's an unimpressive and pointless debate. Whether a fetus is a human or not is fundamentally subjective. And so I'll grant that it is, because I have total confidence in my pro-choice position even then.

The issue with the pro-life position is not that it asserts that abortion is bad. Frankly, I don't give a crap if you or anyone else thinks it is bad. Again, that is subjective. A personal preference. The issue with the pro-life position is that it always seems to assert that abortion must be banned and even criminalized. That's what pro-life is. It doesn't mean "I think abortion is bad", it means "I think abortion should not be allowed."

My position isn't that abortion is good. Mine is that the pregnant person has a right to choose. I think the moral calculus on when and whether it is good or bad is FAR too complicated to form a rule, and so we must leave it up to the biggest stakeholders to figure that out privately.

I think a lot of things are bad, but having a preference against something is different than justifying use of the state's violence to prohibit it.

A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson, PDF - 1971. Hardly new, and I doubt you've never seen it, but ultimately it is still the line of argument that I do not think has been convincingly rebutted. This essay is still probably the most sound and straightforward work of philosophy that shows that banning abortion is impermissible in an ethical society, and it presumes life from the moment of conception just as you do.

My extreme summary of the point it is making: at the end of the day, you have two competing human rights. You have the right to autonomy of your own body against another's right to life. Both are undeniably rights a person has -- and highly related ones, at that. When these rights are in tension, we need to make a choice as to which is supreme. And the consequences of giving life supremacy over autonomy are disastrous compared to the consequences of giving autonomy supremacy over life.

Rather than empower the state to take any and all actions necessary to protect life, we instead must impose a limit on the power of the state -- it may not violate someone's ability to make choices about their own body functions, even if to protect the life of another.

I'd prefer to be in a world that has no abortions at all. Just as I'd prefer to be in a world without contagious disease. One way to get rid of all contagious disease is to systematically euthanize every sick person at their first sniffle. Problem solved! Such is an abortion ban.

We get rid of disease by investing in research and healthcare and doing our best to use it maximize efficacy with fair triage, vaccination programs, etc.. We get rid of abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancies from the get and by creating a world so supportive and safe for pregnant people that they do not want to terminate it.

I don't believe you do because you would've linked to it instead of YouTube. You claim to hate that business, yet you direct people to engage on it.

You're getting on a moral high horse about how it's fair and right to pirate from YouTube because of their bad behavior, yet when given a free alternative platform to view the videos from a creator you respect enough to link, you don't. You go to YouTube.

Let's give an example:

I think you underestimate how much pirates and the opposition truly hate google and their practices and the lengths they will go to in order to get the content they want.

Apparently not very hard at all, since there was a totally Google-free way to get the content you want that supports the creator even better and is free and yet here you are not using it.

So you could be using and supporting alternate platforms, but YouTube is so valuable to you that you don't bother.

Lockdown doesn't require password unless your device settings require password -- it normally just kicks it back to requiring pin. Which is still quite secure. I don't know what you mean saying it is disabled by default -- it is available by default if you long press the power button and click Lockdown.

Even better is to reboot the device. Then it will be in lockdown mode -- pin required -- and also encrypted awaiting the pin. A modern device fresh from a restart should be quite hard indeed to crack without some alternate access to the person's Google account.