Because then the hash is the password. Someone could just send the hash instead of trying to find a password that gets the correct hash. You can’t trust the client that much.

You can hash the password on both sides to make it work; though I’m not sure why you’d want to. I’m not sure what attack never having the plain text password on the server would prevent. Maybe some protection for MITM with password reuse?

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00917519208

HBO owns it in the UK. Weirdly, I couldn’t find an active entry in the US database.

Did he trademark it? Did he sign that away when HBO did the TV series?

Not that it matters for a passport. But it’s entirely likely a media company owns the trademark for a book character rather than the author.

That comment isn’t saying it was consensual; it’s saying her age is what made it nonconsensual, so you can’t just ignore her age.

If adults talked about having sex, got drunk, and had sex, I don’t think people would generally consider it rape. That one of the people involved was 12 is what makes it absolutely rape and utterly disgusting.

My husband’s boss has an alpaca farm. They always have 1 llama whose job is to watch over the alpacas. So this tracks to me haha

That’s a valid opinion. That they’re using it to mean “figuratively” is not.

I didn’t say your statement was pedantic. Just that you specifically called out your use of literally as not used in a figurative sense and that this thread in general is about pedantry. Those two things together made it seem not totally insufferable to point out that literal was actually being applied to figurative language.

Just because you called it out and this is a thread about pedantry: road rage is an idiomatic phrase, which is a type of figurative language. So, you were using literally to emphasize figurative language rather than try to clarify you weren’t using the idiomatic meaning of the phrase but rather a literal.

Yeah. Dictionaries reflect popular usage. And I think literally has probably been in use in that sense nearly as long as it’s been used to mean something really did happen that way.

People who think anyone uses literally to mean figuratively are annoying and too caught up in their crusade to realize their take is idiotic. No one uses it to mean figuratively. People use it to emphasize regardless of the figurative nature of language. It’s semantic drift that happens to most words that mean something similar to “in actuality” (e.g. really, actually). Even in other languages.

You’re the one who set that as the bar.

The idea behind this community should be that you think “wait, really? Is that serious or satire?”

I don’t think anyone at this point would even do a double take to check “is this from a satire news source?” if they happened to see it shared in a context that makes the source not immediately known (e.g. on lemmy). At this point, The Onion headlines involving Trump tend to veer into total ridiculousness (Trump killing Cohen with a pen, bribing people with pb&j, etc). The only way you can do subtlety involving him is things that are totally out of character, like anything with self awareness or acknowledgement of rigging things in his favor.

Did you really wonder if the first was satire? It is 0% surprising when Trump accuses others of what he does.

The list of exemptions is a mile long at this point: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-541?toc=1

Basically if you’re an office worker who makes more than than 34k/year, you’re probably exempt.

If it makes you feel better, that’s not true. More discretionary spending is on “defense.” But roughly 2/3 of the full budget is mandatory spending which largely is social security, Medicare, medicaid, TANF, and SNAP and also includes education and transportation as smaller pieces.

“Puppy on the way home from being trained to hunt birds, kills birds.”

That other countries do it doesn’t make it not horrifying. Almost all your examples are horrifying.

Only the last one isn’t. Being held pending trial if you threaten to flee the country? That makes sense.

The issue is where the kids go after you take them away. It’s not like foster care is renowned for its nurturing environment. Would these kids actually be better off there?

I think it might just be a line of how they used the random object could have reasonably resulted in death. So if you smack someone in the face with a fluffy pillow, it’s not a deadly weapon. If you try to smother them with it, it is.

Because that seems to be your argument as to why you should use a social security card over a birth certificate for the i-9.