It’s probably just not worth it. MS makes the vast, vast majority of thier money on Windows licenses from the corporate sector and OEMs. Any revenue “lost” to MAS is a rounding error on thier toilet paper budget for thier offices.

Both those posts on reddit are people being paranoid (especially the pchelp post, that user is self-admittedly ignorant), perhaps not wrongly, but it is open source and used frequently enough I’d imagine someone would have said something if there were issues.

Personally, I’ve used it probably 3-4x without any issues. Take that for what you will.

EDIT: Manual instructions are here if you wanna be really, really sure.

It’s getting up there in years but I’m running a Dell T5610 with 128GB RAM. Once I start my new job I might upgrade cause it’s having issues running my MC server.

I have no particular suggestions for the Pi, but for the x86 box I’d go headless Arch, install docker and go from there.

Also, I’d personally suggest switching to something that’s not Manjaro. Arch has an install script now which I really like, but there’s also distros like EndeavorOS that don’t have a history of letting thier SSL certs expire multiple times like Manjaro does…

Is there any stated reasoning for the NTP review in the first place beyond “People like RFK think it’s scary”?

This is not exactly what you’re talking about but it’s close and actually is available on the web: check out the camera feeds from ISS. Pretty incredible to just watch the world literally go by.

As far as I’m aware, but a good VPN used well is rarely a bad idea.

That’s the funniest thing about this whole conversation: I do. Quite regularly. It works fine. Better than HTTP for my usecase. No clue what the fuck you people are on about.

That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for the info!

My very not-legal-advice, probably missing details summary is that the way the Farm Bill was originally written was to outlaw hemp-derived Delta-9 THC over 0.3% by weight. So long as the total amount of D9 THC derived from otherwise legal hemp in anything is less than 0.3% by total weight of the product, it’s legal. In order to stay under that limit, all you need to do is make sure your 5mg gummy weighs more than ~167mg or so, which isn’t difficult.

I haven’t, but I’ve baked enough bread to know that sounds awful

Virtual Machine Manager is what you’re looking for I think

No worries. I wasn’t super clear originally and it’s confusing as hell tbh. I just want people to be able to access things they find helpful

I am aware of the difference. The terminology is confusing and I was kinda stoned while typing that.

He specifically said “any detectable amount of total THC” though, which means the difference is moot. Total THC is THCA in this context.

EDIT:

So there is no miscommunication, yeah federal law allows a max of 0.3% D9 THC at the pre-harvest test (I forget the exact specifics, it’s been a while). Newsom said CBD that contains any detectable percentage of total THC is banned in the state of California by executive order with no oversight. The scientific facts of the latter are not the same as the former and Newsom is an idiot for thinking they are.

Newsom announced new emergency regulations on Friday that would outlaw hemp products with any “detectable amount of total THC.” Hemp products that don’t have THC would be further limited to five servings per package, and sales would be restricted to adults 21 and older.

So:

A. He banned all hemp flower and most hemp-derived products in CA in one fell swoop because he doesn’t understand how the relation of THC:CBD works in the plant or the entourage effect or the fact that federally it’s a total of 0.3% maximum, which ain’t getting anybody high.

B. He limited packaging for what reason, exactly? It doesn’t get you high. Even if it did, why?

C. An age limit, that I can agree with. It should probably be 18 for this like it is most everywhere else in the US, but if you want people to be able to die for their country and can’t have a CBD gummy, go ahead Newsom.

Age, testing, and labeling requirements are great. Unscientific regulations by executive order that will make people’s lives worse are not.

In my experience, a lot of “devoutly” religious people are like this.

I grew up Independent Fundamental Baptist (westboro, but less vocally homophobic) and my dad told me a few years ago he secretly kept a stash of alcohol in the garage while he was quite aggressively teaching that the Bible expressly forbade consumption of alcohol that could get you drunk because of a long argument that basically amounts to “Paul said so.” (The proper response to that is “fuck Paul”, obv. Paul was an asshat.)

You can twist anything into anything if you try hard enough, and they’re really good at it.

D8 and D10, sure (though their actual safety is a different issue) but the stuff sold as THCA is generally just regular weed, chosen and cultivated to be under the legal limit for ‘free’ D9.

You do you, but the chemistry is what it is.

That’s just it. It is literally chemically the exact same thing, just called something different because the people that wrote the law weren’t paying attention when they wrote it.

THCA (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) is the same shit, no matter whether it’s directly referred to as THCA is not. It’s the precursor to D9 THC (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol), present in all strains of C. sativa, and gets decarboxylated into D9 when heated. It’s named specifically on stuff you buy online because the law defines D9 itself as the illegal compound. Since D9 directly is only present in trace amounts until you smoke or otherwise heat the plant material, you end with a legal product.

Not a chemist or a lawyer, I just like watching YouTube stoned…

If it’s just HF and you didn’t sign any paperwork on the matter when you worked there, it’s probably fine. If you signed paperwork, consult an attorney yadda yadda yadda.

It’d be one thing if you worked in an industry where those uniforms might give you actual access somewhere (police, fire, EMS, etc), but this is not that.

This is likely a question for an attorney tbh. You’re not asking a technical question, you want to know if EA Ubisoft will sue the shit out of you.

I personally wouldn’t risk it, but I’m not an attorney yadda yadda yadda