Absolutely, but if you were really interested in facts this information is not hard to find once you stop watching cable news…… I doubt you’ll read any of it but here is a random google search….

Your snark, arrogance and cynicism are unwarranted and inappropriate.

But I do appreciate your providing some info - I was genuinely curious and didn’t quite know where to find this evidence - initial searches did not turn up the kind of “overwhelming evidence” you claimed existed. I’m not for a second disputing the USA’s involvement in coup attempts or regime change in general - I think this is quite adequately documented. But your claim was that there is “…overwhelming evidence Blinken has supported multiple coup attempts” but the best you can do is to essentially say he’s guilty of this personally because he has worked for the US government.

That’s honestly pretty weak.

Care to share that evidence?

In my experience pretty much all IP cameras phone home in some way at some point, so yeah, you are best off putting them on a separate VLAN and routing appropriately.

The only brand I’ve had a good experience with is Reolink. I don’t think the quality is appreciably different than a brand like Hikvision and the firmware and support is vastly superior.

Edit: Some good info on using Reolink cameras with Frigate. I use Blue Iris but would vastly prefer OSS.

Not to quibble but technically dispersed camping, according to the USFS, is camping anywhere outside designated sites. The distinction is important because people believe they can’t camp on USFS (or BLM) land for free, almost anywhere they want. In fact with relatively few exceptions and with a bunch of rules like time limits, proximity to water sources, fire restrictions etc etc, you can.

You are manually caching web content. Were you aware that (a) your browser does that for you; (b) the internet does that for you ?

I’m as guilty of this as anyone and can tell you from experience that it’s sutpid.

The difference is that jobs and places to work are extremely diverse. It’s not always easy but you can find something that at least is a tolerable way to make a living. For most folks there are lots of options. With the education system… if you don’t fit into that cookie-cutter hole, there are no alternatives except don’t go, which is straight up illegal in a lot of places until your 18.

This sounds excessive, that’s almost 1.1$/day, amounting to more than 2kWh/24hrs, ie ~80W/hr? You will need to invest in a TDP friendly build. I’m running a AMD APU (known for shitty idle consumption) with Raid 5 and still hover less than 40W/h.

This isn’t speculation on my part, I measured the consumption with a Kill-a-watt. It’s an 11 year old PC with 4 hard drives and multiple fans because it’s in a hot environment and hard drive usage is significant because it’s running security camera software in a virtual machine. Host OS is Linux MInt. It averages right around 110w. I’m fully aware that’s very high relative to something purpose built.

You will need to invest in a TDP friendly build

Right, and spend even more money.

Residential electricity isn’t cheap

This is a point many folks don’t take into account. My average per Kwh cost right now is $0.41 (yes, California, yay). So it costs me almost $400 per year just to have some older hardware running 24x7

That’s what you choose to end this seven hour conversation?

Yes. Because this did not qualify as a conversation.

Thoughtful answer, thanks!

just wanted to argue and get pedantic for whatever reason

You are the pedantic one. Have a nice day.

It really doesn’t though. If you point is… um… what exactly? That somehow the end result is the same? LOL. Only if you squint real hard and pretend to misunderstand words.

“Plant domestication by the earliest farmers 10,000 years ago is an example of genetic modification.”

Technically, yes. That’s true. Through DIFFERENT mechanisms.

But what do you expect when it’s brought to you by Cargill, Bayer, Syngenta, Nutrien, BASF… among others.

The article said they felt it could endanger their livelihood by crossing with cultivars they’d spent decades developing and which were uniquely valuable economically.

It’s the same outcome and you’re not getting that.

I just explained how it’s not and you’re not getting that.

Here, educate yourself: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-gmo-and-selective-breeding/

As the article points out, it’s not just a question of safety.

“Farmers who brought this case with us – along with local scientists – currently grow different varieties of rice, including high-value seeds they have worked with for generations and have control over. They’re rightly concerned that if their organic or heirloom varieties get mixed up with patented, genetically engineered rice, that could sabotage their certifications, reducing their market appeal and ultimately threatening their livelihoods.”

Golden rice could have saved hundreds, if not thousands, of lives by now.

Serious question. If hundreds of lives were at stake, why were other mechanisms… such as just giving kids vitamin A, not apparently employed? Regardless of the merits of the opposition to this rice, why not pursue this on multiple fronts?

The right way to do it would be to outcross Golden Rice with local strains

That this might happen is literally one of the specific complaints of farmers.

Greenpeace have genetic purity fanatics?

Were you trying to be funny or do you really think this is the motivation here? Did you even read the article?

It is selecting genes through breeding or doing the same thing in a laboratory.

It is a completely different mechanism. The best way to simply describe this is perhaps to say that in selective breeding you are allowing random mutations to happen naturally - IOW allowing the plant to naturally “adapt” to it’s environment. This is crucially different in that you are not going in and saying “oh these genes are the ones we want let’s only bring those out” but rather “these are the characteristics I want, let’s select the organisms that display those”.

To put it another way: in selective breeding you are selecting for a collection of characteristics. A great example is saving seed from a crop you have grown. Those seeds will always do better in your specific environment than commercially purchased seeds of the exact same cultivar. Why? Because there are small random mutations across a number of genes that are better adapted to your specific environment to produce the characteristics you want. Those genes are often not actually understood nor is the effect of different combinations of genes. By working backward from exhibited characteristics you are working from known successful combinations.

It all depends what your definition of genetic modification is.

No it doesn’t.

It’s a completely disingenuous argument and a false equivalency. We know that we are referring to GMO vs selective breeding. These are completely different mechanisms and in the latter case we understand the consequences and implications because humans have been doing it for millennia. In the former case we have not been doing it very long at all and do not yet fully understand the consequences and implications. I’m not saying that makes it inherently wrong, but it is a vast area of unknown ramifications. And given human’s already long history of fucking with nature and finding out my money is on those ramifications being less than ideal.