SSTF

Then it isn’t a filler. I never said I don’t swear, but have greatly reduced it. One effect of reduced swearing is that when swears are used, they have more punch.

I’m not sure why you’re so invested in debating that people who habitually swear won’t insert swears into unrelated thoughts, but the only support I offer is to listen to someone who habitually swears speak. I don’t want to sound like that, so I make the effort not to.

My choice on how I speak and type doesn’t impose anything on you.

I don’t recall saying every use of a swear is a filler word.

Delightful.

I have made a conscious effort to reduce swearing, which has brought my swearing down to near zero, both online and in real life conversation.

I have found that it streamlines the ability to make a point. A lot of swearing is simply thrown in out of habit, and if you remove it, all you do is make your point more clear without losing anything of substance.

I think for many people swearing is a “filler word” in the same way that “umm” can be. I have also worked hard to reduce my other filler word use. My goal with both of these is better articulation.

The next effect is that swearing is normally viewed as an extreme use of language for an extreme situation, and when you don’t constantly swear the times that you do actually conveys how notable the situation is.

Basically every episode of Columbo. The mystery isn’t the crime, but how he’s going to solve it.

I want to like his videos, but I’ve bounced off because his speech pattern has the energy of a middle schooler receipting his book report in front of the class. I can’t listen to that for extended periods.

The overall story really flailed around as the later seasons went on (IIRC during a writers’ strike is when there was a lot of issues), but ‘33’- the first episode of the first season is so fantastic I still remember it distinctly.

The style, tone, and acting of BSG really kept the show intriguing even if the plot went in circles sometimes.

deleted by creator

Okay I hear you, but have we tried speeding up the conveyor belt?

That requires the freedom to do so. If it is a situation where the police interaction starts suddenly, there are many scenarios where this advice is not useful.

There are two related but distinct issues, and I hope to keep them separate otherwise the conversation goes in circles:

1 - Can police under the circumstances look at the contents of the phone at all? This is to say, if the phone is completely unlocked, can they look through it?

2 - If the police are allowed to look at the contents, but the phone is locked, in what ways can the police unlock it?

Subject 1: This is by far the more important question, and the one that seems to get ignored in discussions of phone searches like this. I would argue that under most circumstances there is no probable cause to search a phone- the phone can not contain drugs or weapons or other contraband, so to me this is the larger hurdle for police. Police should have to justify what illegal thing they think is on the phone that gives them probable cause, and I don’t think that pictures of illegal things are the same as the illegal things themselves. Lawyers would have to hash this out, because I do notice the suspect here was on parole so perhaps there is a clause of parole for this or something. But this is the bigger, much bigger issue- can police even look at the contents? There is an argument from the pro-search side that constants of an unlocked phone are in plain view, and so that right there is a big nexus for the issue.

Subject 2: If we assume yes, only then does subject 2 become an issue. How much can police compel? Well, they can’t compel speech. A passcode would count as protected speech, so they can’t compel that. Biometrics however, from what I have seen of court reasoning, tend to be viewed as something a person has rather than something they know. This would be analogue to a locked container with a combination lock compared to a key. The police can not compel the combo, but if they find they key in your pocket they can take it and use it.

If you are up in arms about privacy, my view is not to fall into the trap of focusing on 2 and the finer mechanics of where the line for what kinds of ways to lock a phone are, and focus on subject 1. Reduce the circumstances in which searching a phone is acceptable, even if the phone is unlocked to begin with.

This is about biometrics, not passcodes.

That’s what I thought you meant, I was just trying to confirm, as I sometimes feel a step behind in tech conversions.

It is annoying not to have a button on the UI, but once you learn the hotkey this becomes a non-issue unless I’m missing something? I suppose this is an issue, but for a piece of free software like this it sort of feels like making a mountain out of a molehill.

deleted by creator

Ah you’re right. I guess this is 320-M18 model. I was looking at 320-M17s and thinking this looked to small to be that.

Sig

Security

Day of the negative 30 degree drop angle soon.

Looks like the [320-M18] model, which comes with a [15] round flush magazine. But mechanically it can take a longer magazine and we can’t see the bottom of it in the picture.

Looks like the [320-M18] model, which comes default with a [15] round flush magazine. Then again we can’t see the bottom in the picture and nothing is stopping him from putting an extended magazine in.

It really depends on the design and how much of it somebody is committed to 3D printing. If somebody wants to 3D print the bare minimum for legal purposes and use a parts kit for the rest, there’s a number of designs that seem identical in function to something factory made.