(rx "/*" ; Initial /*
(zero-or-more
(or (not (any "*")) ; Either non-*,
(seq "*" ; or * followed by
(not (any "/"))))) ; non-/
(one-or-more "*") ; At least one star,
"/") ; and the final /
ran·sack
/ˈranˌsak/ verb
past tense: ransacked; past participle: ransacked
go hurriedly through (a place) stealing things and causing damage.
"burglars ransacked her home"
search through (a place or receptacle) to find something, especially in such a way as to cause disorder and damage.
"Hollywood ransacks the New York stage for actors"
even you wrote ransack … for to denote the other sense
At risk at seeming like I sympathize for Musk (I don't), anyone else read parts of the article that raise questions?
In the United States, Musk has found a powerful ally in Trump. Together, they have ransacked the federal government
ransacked?
Doesn't that usually mean plunder?
They're damaging the government in many horrible ways, however, Musk outright stealing from the government would lead to easy challenges making headlines: I wish he'd make it that easy.
Ransack for as in vigorously searching through something could be another sense, but it wasn't used that way here.
I guess it could mean rush through, causing damage.
Curious word choice that I can overlook.
Reading on…
She filed a complaint with a local market regulator, requesting a refund and compensation. Teslas are among the most computerized cars on the market, so Zhang asked the automaker to turn over the full pre-crash data from her car, hoping it might help explain what went wrong. Tesla refused.
“Tesla’s employees were very arrogant and tough in dealing with my complaints,” Zhang said in an interview. “I was burning with anger.”
no mention of Zhang receiving compensation
So it looks like Tesla is resisting compensating Zhang & releasing pre-crash data.
A top executive speculated to Chinese media that she “had someone behind her” and said Zhang was making a fuss because she just wanted higher compensation.
Wait, did Zhang receive any compensation?
I thought she hadn't.
I still don't know.
Does the article clearly say?
Back in court as a defendant, Zhang was unable to prove that the brakes on her Tesla had indeed failed.
Besides Zhang's words of her father's panic that the brakes aren't working, did she have solid evidence that the brakes did not work?
Post-crash analysis? Independent analysis of untampered logs directly off the car's hardware?
While I was ready to condemn Musk & Tesla and to ridicule the Chinese government over this, this isn't satisfying.
Not to understate all the other reasons to condemn them, which are clear & also covered in the article, this article leaves unanswered a number of critical questions that it could answer.
I do find this to be a little odd, kind of drastic.
Rather than drastic, there could be additional, medically informed factors that would make this totally reasonable.
According to the book Blind Spots, fallopian tubes begin certain highly deadly cancers lacking effective screening tests & that are often incurable when discovered.
For someone who's decided not to bear children, their physicians may reasonably recommend fallopian tube removal.
It's a highly effective oncological intervention.
Transgenders are different: under no circumstances can we put America's transgenders in danger.
They are far too precious to risk in combat.
Like for the sake of homosexuals 16 years ago, it has been the solemn oath of every man in uniform to lay down his life in defense of America's precious, precious transgenders.
I mostly pointed out the different definitions one might use so that people wouldn’t read my examples of rights violations and think “what’s that got to do with democracy?”.
Yet you wrote
That’s not even true in a very minimal definition of democracy
Are you contradicting yourself later by conceding (flawed as it may be) it fit "a very minimal definition of democracy"?
Other common restrictions in ancient Greek democracies were being a male citizen (who was born to 2 citizens), a minimum age, completed military service.
Still, rule wasn't restricted to oligarchs or monarchs.
I think we'd still call that a democracy in contrast to everything else.
Your writing seems inconsistent.
If it existed today it would probably not even be called a democracy by western standards.
Do good, objective definitions vary by time & culture?
Seems problematic.
Seems you're claiming something doesn't fit a minimal definition of democracy while using a non-minimal definition of democracy.
Sure, it's a flawed democracy, but we can repudiate it on those considerations it fails and clarify them without overgeneralizing.
Passkeys or WebAuthn are an open web standard, and the implementation is flexible.
An authenticator can be implemented in software, with a hardware system integrated into the client device, or off-device.
Exportability/portability of the passkey is up to the authenticator.
Bitwarden already exports them, and other authenticators likely do, too.
WebAuthn relying parties (ie, web applications) make trust decisions by specifying characteristics of eligible authenticators & authentication responses & by checking data reported in the responses.
Those decisions are left to the relying party's discretion.
I could imagine locked-down workplace environments allowing only company-approved configurations connect to internal systems.
WebAuthn has no bearing on whether an app runs on a custom platform: that's entirely on the developer & platform capabilities to reveal customization.
Elisp has a nice notation for maintainably composing regexes like any other programming expression. Only language I've seen offer that. So instead of
"/\\*\\(?:[^*]\\|\\*[^/]\\)*\\*+/", the regular expression to match C block comments could be expressed (with inline comments)(rx "/*" ; Initial /* (zero-or-more (or (not (any "*")) ; Either non-*, (seq "*" ; or * followed by (not (any "/"))))) ; non-/ (one-or-more "*") ; At least one star, "/") ; and the final /