> should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
So it's a referendum on whether or not to start the process towards possibly, maybe, holding a referendum in the future.
You can't start doing this, the only way it ends is with a full rainbow deck of cards that the referee has to spend 5 minutes digging through every time someone gets tripped.
Long before it gets that far, soccer needs to end in the country.
For most people, soccer is a fun, pass time, and they are not abusive, and things work well. Overall there are enough cases of abuse that they have to go one step down the slippery slope and do something. That doesn't mean they have to go all the way. I don't know where the future will go. I suspect and hope that this is as far as it ever goes. But if things continue getting worse, maybe Romania has to say, 'that's enough. We're not going to do soccer anymore'.
And I'm serious about Romania completely stopping soccer in a country if things continue to get worse after this. Now there's probably a few other rules that they will need to adjust and tweak over the years, but if abusive fans and or abusive parents continue as a problem that means that the people of the country can't handle the game. No more Romania Intl the World Cup. They're not going to send a team because they don't allow soccer anymore.
Don't let it get that far. Whatever sport you do. Cheer when the opposing team makes a good play. Congratulate to the on a win.
I can accept bad officials as long as they're unbiased. As long as they're making bad calls against both teams or missing calls against both teams, I can deal with that. It's when the official is biased and making calls against one team that they're going to let go for the other team, that's when I have a problem. However you deal with that at the league level not in a game
there is also that anything that blocks UV (sunscreen, windows, etc) by definition blocks UVB first and then UVA, and UVA is the one that penetrates most deeply and has few benefits
I turned this off because it engages when you're on a flight and in that context it feels kind of nonsensical and just annoying. I don't think the people who made this thought about flights.
> Falcon 9 first-stage boosters have been landed and recovered 616 times out of 629 attempts, including synchronized recoveries of the side-boosters of most Falcon Heavy flights.
Maybe it's physically impossible to build a theoretically secure system, just as it's (presumably) impossible to have a cell that isn't susceptible to any virus. Maybe this whole time we've been getting away with a type of security by obscurity, where the obscurity is just no one having the time and focus to actually analyze the code.
1. Any given system has a finite number of findable vulnerabilities.
2. All findable vulnerabilities are fixable (if not in software then with a new hardware revision).
3. Fixing a vulnerability while keeping the same intended functionality introduces on average less than 1 other findable vulnerability.
4. It is possible to cease adding new features to a system and from that point forward only focus on fixing vulnerabilities.
If all 4 are true, then perfect security seems possible, in some sense. I think some vulnerabilities might not be fixable, if you include things like the idea that users can be tricked into revealing their passwords. If you restrict the definition of vulnerability to some narrower meaning that still captures most of what people mean when they say computer vulnerability, then I think those 4 statements are probably true.
Perfect security might be near impossible in practice because vulnerabilities will get more difficult to find and fix over time, but I think we should expect the discovery of vulnerabilities to eventually become arbitrarily slow in a hypothetical system that prioritized security above all else.
I would rather claim that building a theoretically secure system is prohibitively expensive. At the end of the day, Mythos et al. are just better tools for finding vulnerabilities that will eventually be available to both offensive and defensive actors.
If you imagine you had a vulnerability scanner as fast and convenient as a linter, it would be much cheaper to write secure code right away. Probably not perfectly secure, but still secure enough to make sure finding exploits stays expensive.
I would find it funny if one day we found it irresponsable to write hand generated production code. Just like it would be irresponsable to build a significan building without running numerical simulations.
it's probably less about how you write the code to begin with and more about letting a tool hammer on it
if you want to be a one man show handcrafting an artisan iOS app that will be fine, but you should probably let Claude bang against it for a while to shake out whatever bugs
> should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
So it's a referendum on whether or not to start the process towards possibly, maybe, holding a referendum in the future.
https://www.elections.ab.ca/elections/referendum/
reply