So, Primer, then? Where you can’t return to a point in time before the time machine was constructed?

On the morality point, I’d argue that we should spend the money to rescue any person if we have the money/means, and it can feasibly happen without excessive risk to other lives, otherwise we’re assigning monetary value to human lives.

Resources are finite, though. If rescuing one person requires, say, 10 units of resources, but rescuing 10 others require only 1 unit of resources, isn’t choosing to rescue the 1 over the 10 already placing relative value on human lives, by declaring them to be 10x as valuable as the others? This is obviously operating on the assumption that we don’t have the resources to rescue everyone who needs rescuing.

My real wonder would be if the majority of Americans would okay the amount of money it would cost to save that one man?

Depends where the money is coming from. Military budget? Absolutely. Being taken from social services and whatnot? No. The amount of money that would cost could save so many more lives if it was used for things here. Choosing to spend it on saving an astronaut rather than on, for example, feeding homeless people and distributing medication and disaster relief is like a version of the trolley problem where the trolley is already heading for the 1 person, but you have the option of switching it to the other track to kill more people if you want to. I’d have a really hard time calling that moral by any metric.

Also some absolutely great dialog / voice acting.

“You are WOEFULLY deficient in the ways of etiquette, BUT… you have a point.”

Not only that, it’s a meaningless requirement. There’s subs on Reddit that exist solely to farm karma. You make a post, everyone upvotes it, done.

You could just look up articles on his policies - given his high profile status, they’re all over right now.

Wow, there’s a series I haven’t thought about in like a decade. I recall really enjoying that game way back when, though.

There’s already services like Box.com that offer similar functionality for files.

As a suggestion, having an option to have the string deleted after it’s been accessed once would be nice as an extra layer of protection.

Not that I’d use this service for it, but I’ve had use cases for this sort of thing. It’s not so much about plausible deniability as OP wants to sell it as, but more about security. You send the locked link (or a PW protected file or whatever) via, say, email, and the password through a text message. Then, in order for the data to be stolen, the attacker would need access to both of those, rather than only one. It’s niche, but I’ve needed to do it for my job before, so I can at least see the point.

Makes privacy-focused service

Disallows access through VPNs

Mate…

The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”

Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.

It’s like saying you couldn’t have committed a crime because your TV was on at the time; it seems too flimsy to even be usable if you didn’t have some other form of evidence supporting that it was actually you using it to go along with it. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s possible I’m totally wrong, but surely no competent lawyer would expect that to work and no judge would take that as evidence on its own merits.

It wouldn’t exonerate you, unless you could prove beyond a doubt that it was you using the phone. It’d be easy, if you were planning a murder, to give an accomplice your phone and have them use it all night to cover for you. It might be able to be used in conjunction with other evidence, though, to assist in your defense.

As far as I’m aware, death punishment is not what happened to any of those that refused during Vietnam or Afghanistan.

“Life-ending consequences” doesn’t necessarily mean literal death. Court martials for serious offenses (which disobeying orders absolutely is) can come with very heavy penalties. It’s possible that it’s a regional colloquialism, but ‘life-ending consequences’ refers to consequences that end “life as you know it”, typically referring to something that is reasonably impossible to recover from.

Trump got democratically elected

Debatable.

thousand of soldiers carried out his orders while they could have refused

Refusing lawful orders comes with life-ending consequences.

Calling them orcs or implying the population is all shit?

Personally, I think equating any population with the actions of its government is a poor move, but you do you.

I have heard that small recurring donations are more helpful in general than larger one-time donations, so that’s what I tend to do - small recurring donations to services I use or creators whose content I consume. I tend to only do this when the service or content is primarily donation-supported, though.

This is also easier for me to manage, because it becomes a monthly recurring cost and I can see easily how much I’m spending on donations and adjust them as needed, whereas with larger one-time donations, I tend to lose track of how much the total is in a given period.

In short, vibe coding kick-started an era in which humans could make computers do new things, rather than the stuff they’d been hard-wired to do at the factory or through installed “software” (another word for “apps”).

Yeah, it sure is a good thing we have AI. Now real people can make computers do the things they want! It’s a novel idea that previously was just unthinkable.

User 1: “I’m having an issue with a service, has anyone else experienced this?”

User 2: “I do not use that service.” <-- This contributes nothing to the discussion, and makes User 2 sound like a prick. Don’t be like User 2.

Simply adding one word would have made the title much less misleading.

‘JD Vance gets briefly suspended from bluesky ‘just 12 minutes after first post’’

As it stands, it strongly implies that his first post caused him to get suspended, and that he’s still suspended now. I’m not even sure why this is considered newsworthy. Why did someone even bother writing this article? Answer is, I’d wager, because the headline makes it sound sensational when it’s in fact not, and it drives clicks.

You don’t think that the omission of the very relevant followup fact from the title is misleading, perhaps intentionally so, to someone only glancing at headlines?

Imagine if the police were looking for your neighbor, mistook your house for theirs, arrested you thinking you were them, then minutes later released you when they realized their error. Would an article titled ‘TachyonTele arrested in own home’ be a fair summary of those events?