I’d be tempted to just run it on port 443 so it looks like normal web traffic… Would raise fewer eyebrows than “what’s all this traffic going to some random port” (depending on how well the network is monitored - and it’s probably not well monitored at all). I’ve used ssh to do stuff like this in the past (use -D to enable a SOCKS proxy through a ssh tunnel).

Frankly I’d be more concerned about the laptop itself being scanned depending on the spyware the school uses to monitor usage.

Very true.

Again - my point being made. Why even mention it if not to poison the well?

Yes. Which is why it’s very misleading to say that glyphosate is “classed as a ‘probable human carcinogen’” without any context.

Most people will assume that means it’s more dangerous than it is.

Like - if you phrased it as “glyphosate is about as carcinogenic as a steak” then it rather loses its punch as a propaganda statement.

I can’t fault anyone who’s untrusting of a system that continuously covers lie after lie with more lies

I can and will. Learn some basic critical thinking skills and apply them. Throwing your hands up and ranting about how “the system is broken” is mopey teenager shit.

Things are far more complicated than your whiny rant. They world is shades of gray rather than the simplistic “bad guy in black / good guy in white” situation that you characterize it as.

The WHO considers “red meat” to be a “probable carcinogen”.

The question is: are these new levels still considered “safe”?

The remaining employees are just there for the money.

You just described “work”.

It’s the middle name at least.

Last names are often used as first names.

It’s his middle name. His first name is Loki.

It’s not the method if counting that’s bad - it’s the mandatory counting for all votes. It’s going to take weeks to process.

“I want to repent of what I wrote before,”

He apologized for what he wrote.

You need to let people change their mind. You want it to be easy for Christians to say “I was wrong”. By attacking them for doing so you raise a barrier to change.

His “word salad” means something to other Christians. If it helps them to also change their minds then that’s great! He’s likely to be far more effective at it than atheists yelling “your bible means Jack shit”.

Seems generous.

Reporters are very often not experts in the things they report on. You don’t want them injecting their own personal thoughts into every article. Picture an anti-vax reporter reporting on a CDC briefing.

They’re reporting on what the guy said so that you know what was said. You can make the determination on whether it has merits or not and, in fact, you have. There are times where you need press to push back - that’s Journalism. But your average on-the-street reporter who isn’t an expert in everything isn’t equipped to do more than “observe and report” which is fine.

This is exactly the kind of law enforcement message that reporters should examine and challenge, rather than mindlessly repeat.

I hate this sort of criticism. 90% of reporting is … reporting. It’s not editorializing.

You’re being non-chalant about killing someone.

I’m absolutely not. I don’t believe in the death penalty - and I’m not defending it. But you can’t throw out every case because somebody makes a new claim. Everybody in this thread is believing the new information unquestionably. The trial would have presented other corroborating evidence as well.

It’s like how you still need to determine if somebody committed a crime even if they confess.

So just our entire system of law is meaningless then?

that’s been proven to be lying under oath.

That’s a very big assumption you’re making. They could be lying now.

Or are they lying now? You can’t know. Do you reevaluate every case when somebody says something other than their sworn testimony?

Guess innocence isn’t as important as the death penalty. They should have known that someone lied under oath at the time, right?

Don’t be obtuse. Multiple lines of evidence were presented to convince 12 people that he was guilty.

Guess we should just release everybody from prison because we can never know with 100% certainty that anyone ever did anything.

Anybody can say anything. They held a trial. Testimonies were given under oath. Other witnesses testified.

You can’t throw out every conviction after-the-fact because somebody says something new. It would be trivial to overturn sentences and lock up the courts for decades.