This is the problem, not what is shown in the per-app notifications. Don’t turn on notification history.

That’s not the problem here. Showing a notification with content is not a big deal.

In the case stated here, the big deal is that the notification HISTORY was preserved after removal of Signal. That’s because both Apple and Google do the same thing. They keep a notification history. Not on a per-app basis, ALL apps notification history is stored.

I know that on Androids, it is turned off by default and you can turn it on, so you get the impression that Android doesn’t have this issue. I am going to guess as I do not own an apple anything that iOS has notification history turned on by default. This is the real problem. This is not anything Signal can control for unless they were to not support notifications which would render their app useless, so that’s not an option.

Oh come on, but it’s fun!

I run a LLM on my local machine to to sex fantasy stuff.

I like strange things. Nobody wants what I want, so am I just supposed to become even WEIRDER than I am, let all that kinky energy turn toxic and then rapey or just type for 20 minutes a day about butt sex with an LLM that thinks everything I come up with is fantastic? Seems like the latter is pretty mild compared to the former.

We’d probably have a lot fewer rapey guys in the world when sex bots are a thing. Some dudes are just unfuckably gross. The world knows it, they know it. They didn’t choose to look gross, have a weird body, be something unappealing, but they still have monkey instincts to stick their dick into something. That doesn’t just go away because you’re not good looking. It will turn into some bad energy if you just have to live your life that way. I mean, you don’t have to look hard to see it in the world around us.

So you clean out your pipes while you clean out your pipes?

What’s the downside here?

Hm, that’s odd. I just laughed a lot. 🤷

I hear schools are pretty good at giving people these funny things called “tests” to assess an individual’s knowledge on a certain subject. Not only are schools good at testing, I hear there is a WHOLE INDUSTRY built on creating and running them.

You know, they could give those to other people too I’ll bet! In fact, I’ll bet you can use them to qualify doctors, lawyers, barbers, auto mechanics and all sorts of people!

Oh wait, these are politicians. We shouldn’t do that to them. I don’t know why, but it just feels wrong. Never mind.

When I was a teenager, I grew up in the country so we had wasps everywhere. I hated them. One morning in the summer I was dead asleep–until I was awakened by a wasp that stung me in the fucking neck. So this asshole had to fly into my room decide to land on me, probably crawl around a bit and then decide “Fuck this guy right here NNNNNNG”. I was so goddamn angry and confused. I had to get up and tend to the sting because I swell like a moteherfucker. However, being a lazy teenager, I went back to bed. I woke up about 10 minutes later because I then felt it CRAWLING ON ME AGAIN. I was so fucking furious, I just monkey pounded it into a million little pieces with my fists in the mattress.

Fuck wasps, I spent many years capturing them, holding them with tweezers and slowly cooking them over a candle. Not sorry.

I have a P2 V70 and a P3 XC70. Also S90. I may have a problem. Family member crashed the XC into a tree/bush thing. It’s in the garage getting put back together. Waiting on parts. The clown who crashed it is being a lazy turd. If he doesn’t get moving on it, he’s going to be walkin’ soon.

Would love one, but they’re usually beat to hell and back.

I also would not mind finding a P3 XC70 T6 and putting the suspension from a V70 in it. Make a P3 faux v70r. Get a licence plate that says FAKE R

Yeah, 6gb RAM is CRAZY! It’s almost like you’d have to buy a computer that’s at least 15 years old to get that!

What the hell is wrong with these people giving us free software for free and then having the audacity to expect us to pay more than $32 for a computer to run it!

THE NERVE!

Depends. It came with the 5-cylinder turbo, a 3.2L inline 6, a turbo inline 3.0L 6 or a V8.

Get a P2 V70.

I have one, it is old, but gold. Like, the paint color is gold. It doesn’t run very well. It’s handsome though.

See kids, this is why we still use Firefox (I did not pay):

Wednesday’s Supreme Court arguments over birthright citizenship went very poorly for Donald Trump. The president watched from the front row as a majority of the justices expressed deep skepticism toward his executive order seeking to deny U.S. citizenship to the American-born children of many immigrants. He walked out of the courtroom midway through arguments and later ranted on Truth Social that the nation is “stupid” for protecting this fundamental right. Trump is not a sophisticated legal observer, but even he seemed to understand that the case is not going to go his way.

There was no single turning point against the administration at arguments—but one exchange between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Solicitor General John Sauer may have locked in the government’s loss. On a special Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus, co-host Mark Joseph Stern discussed this pointed exchange with Evan Bernick, a professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law and co-author of a significant amicus brief in the case. A preview of their conversation, below, has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Mark Joseph Stern: Justice Barrett had a lot of skeptical questions for the solicitor general. And she really drilled down on his theory that children do not receive birthright citizenship if their parents lack “domicile” in the United States or hold “allegiance” to a foreign power. She asked how the government would know whether certain immigrants intended to stay in the country or maintain loyalty to a foreign power. And where would we draw the line? What about, for instance, the child of a woman who’s illegally trafficked into the U.S. then gives birth here? Is that person an automatic citizen?

Sauer kept returning to his claim that the lone purpose of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was to overturn Dred Scott and grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children. But then Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?

Evan Bernick: Justice Barrett likes to show why history supports a rule that makes sense rather than doing history just for the sake of history. She wants to show how there’s latent wisdom to the rule that was incorporated into this history. And for Barrett, that is the rule of jus soli—the idea that if you’re born in a place and governed by that place, you’re a citizen of that place. If you have that rule, you don’t have to worry about the “domicile” or “allegiance” of people who were illegally trafficked.

She made very clear that she viewed the children of slaves through the lens of unlawful immigration. She thought that the situation of enslaved people’s children was not something that could be settled on the basis of any domicile requirement. Because if we think about domicile as “presence with intent to remain,” well, enslaved people didn’t intend to remain anywhere! They were taken. They were forced into a place. So domicile can’t be the rule, because then you can’t unproblematically grant citizenship to the children of formerly enslaved people.

Just to draw this out: Sauer’s argument is that if people came here illegally, their children don’t get birthright citizenship. Barrett responded: OK, but many slaves were brought here illegally, and everyone acknowledges that the point of the 14th Amendment first and foremost was to grant citizenship to them and their children. So this felt like the moment that Sauer completely lost the case, because he had to admit that his chief theory cannot be squared with what he himself acknowledges the 14th Amendment was ratified to do.

Yes. And I inferred another implication from what Barrett was saying: If domicile is the rule, and domicile requires that you have the permanent intention to stay in a place, enslaved people who were forcibly imported into the country against their will did not have an intention to stay there. So if we’re going to tie the status of children to whether their parents are “domiciled,” under Sauer’s own theory, why would the children of formerly enslaved people be citizens at all? The citizenship clause would not accomplish its most basic function of overruling Dred Scott.

So I think that is what’s going on with Barrett. She read the briefs. She has a firm idea about the distinction between two very different theories of citizenship: jus soli, based on soil, and jus sanguinis, based on descent. The former is much less complicated than the latter. The framers of the 14th Amendment had good reasons to use the less complicated one. And we have good reason to keep it, because it prevents all these very complicated problems from subsequently arising.

Barrett did ask tough questions of the ACLU’s Cecillia Wang, who argued against Trump’s order. She really pressed Wang on whether Congress could expand the limited classes that do not receive birthright citizenship. What did you make of that?

Wang took the position that the set of exceptions to birthright citizenship is closed. Congress can’t create new exceptions to birthright citizenship, but it can get rid of old exceptions. And Barrett was unsatisfied with this, because Wang didn’t really elaborate a theory about it. So it came off more as “this is good policy” rather than “I’ve got text and history on my side.” And Barrett wondered where this closed set came from.

But you still think this case will probably come down 7–2 against Trump with Barrett in the majority?

Absolutely. Barrett was outright hostile to the solicitor general’s arguments. I just think her professor mindset was triggered by some of Wang’s answers.

It will creep in slowly since most people dont touch any settings on their computer after the initial unboxing and setup.

Big box retailers will offer discounts on them, much like how you can buy a Chromebook for very little.

Enticed by cheap computers, people will buy not knowing that any limitations exist. They’ll be encouraged to use centralized app repositories but they can still install some other stuff.

A year or two later, some things won’t be permitted, computer will make scary warnings when installing, but with enough clicking, you can get past. Until the day you can’t.

It will be a progression, but it will happen eventually. I honestly am surprised that computers dont require some sort of registration. I’m sure that will happen eventually.