When I see phrases like “re-thinking” and “another point of view”, I am led to believe that I will be reading about something relatively new. Instead, there not anything new here, and on top of that the person writing the article seems to barely understand the concepts involved. Finally, their English is so poor that the article is really hard to read.

All of their children will die; it is only a matter of when.

Put another way: every time a parent gives birth, they are bestowing the irrevocable gift of one day experiencing dying to their child.

Yeah, and it had more tangents then an infinitely differentiable curve.

But that might be seen as being in the spirit of C++

One might even say that this is another instance of the same template.

Could someone point me to a more in-depth legal analysis of this bill? The text of it is here. It looks to me like it is mostly about replacing vague parts of the U.S. code with regards to patents with more explicit instructions, and one of these instructions even seems to give courts explicit permission to judge whether an invention is eligible for a patent rather than taking this power away:

IN GENERAL.—In an action brought for infringement under this title, the court, at any time, may determine whether an invention or discovery that is a subject of the action is eligible for a patent under this section, including on motion of a party when there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Furthermore, one really nice thing that this bill does is that it makes it clear that if the invention or discovery solely involves a process or material occurring naturally with no modification–a human gene being explicitly called out–then it is explicitly ineligible for a patent.

To be clear, though, I am not a legal expert, which is why it would be great if someone would provide an in-depth analysis of exactly where the problem is rather than just saying that the bill is bad.

A Mortician’s Tale was a nice relatively short interactive experience about what it is like to work in that occupation and its ups and downs, and an opportunity to reflect a bit on the reality of death.

Maybe, but I strongly suspect that there were enough other things going in Trump’s favor that if she’d broken with Biden on Gaza–which is not nearly as easy as you make it sound–then we would have still ended up in the same place, except that different people would now be blaming her for that decision.

(Just to be clear, I am not saying that her campaign was flawless, only that it is easy to second guess.)

To The Moon

I have played that game five times (so I could share the experience with other people) and have broken down into tears at the end every time.

Repeating my other reply verbatim yet again as you keep copying and pasting the same exact comment:

First, to be clear, this isn’t so much “press” as a blog entry. Second, there are only so many mentions of “rust cultists” and “my rust” I can read in a blog before losing interest.

Repeating my other reply verbatim as you just did the same:

First, to be clear, this isn’t so much “press” as a blog entry. Second, there are only so many mentions of “rust cultists” and “my rust” I can read in a blog before losing interest.

First, to be clear, this isn’t so much “press” as a blog entry. Second, there are only so many mentions of “rust cultists” and “my rust” I can read in a blog before losing interest.

I disagree that the web site is fast; it took at least 10 seconds before the video would start playing.

With most series of this length, towards the end I’ve tended to wish that the author would just wrap things up already so I could find out the ending and move on with my life.

With this series I actually got sad as I made my way through the last book because it meant that the story was going to end soon and I had been enjoying it so much that I didn’t want it to end. (Having said that, I also absolutely loved the ending, which is also unusual for me for a series that is this long!)