ricecake

You can vote from overseas in whatever location was your last permanent US residence.
People in DC get to vote for president because a special law was passed giving them electoral votes.

People in Puerto Rico have a US permeant residence that doesn't let them vote for president, so they can't legally vote from a different jurisdiction.
One of the proposals that's come up occasionally is to make a similar law for Puerto Rico as we did for DC, but there's never enough consensus on any plan to go forward, up until relatively recently.

For the most part it's not useful, at least not the way people use it most of the time.
It's an engine for producing text that's most like the text it's seen before, or for telling you what text it's seen before is most like the text you just gave it.

When it comes to having a conversation, it can passibly engage in small talk, or present itself as having just skimmed the Wikipedia article on some topic.
This is kinda nifty and I've actually recently found it useful for giving me literally any insignificant mental stimulation to keep me awake while feeding a baby in the middle of the night.

Using it to replace thinking or interaction gives you a substandard result.
Using it as a language interface to something else can give better results.

I've seen it used as an interface to a set of data collection interfaces, where all it needed to know how to do was tell the user what things they could ask about, and then convert their responses into inputs for the API, and show them the resulting chart. Since it wasn't doing anything to actually interpret the data, it never came across as "wrong".

I mean, it's not because they're Puerto Rican, it's because they live in Puerto Rico. Someone from Iowa who moved to Puerto Rico would also not get a vote.
This is because our system allocates votes to land, not people.
US citizens don't get to vote for president. They get to vote for who their place of residence votes for.

Up until the 60s, people in DC also didn't get a vote, because by default only states get a vote, and it's explicitly not a state.

Tails is only partly correct. The state is open about it's monopoly on violence , and it's a key argument in the philosophy of government. The state will use that violence against anyone who threatens it.

The state exists to protect the power that enables the state. Protestors object to some organization of the state, and so they're de facto threats.
Minorities are disproportionately targeted because they inevitably don't have the power that enables the state.

It's not the state being pro peace and making exceptions, it's the state being pro-state, and being structured around that principle. The violence is inherent and exceptions are made if you provide value or benefit from value being defined to include you.

Puerto Rican statehood is more complicated than that. Becoming a state is a contentious issue even amongst Puerto Ricans.

I believe it's closer to "no use crying over spilt milk". "Unhelpful sadness or remorse".

Got any data for that claim, or just asserting?

https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-see-united-states-playing-positive-role-middle-east

It's why the Harris campaign is consistently trying to thread the needle and support Israel while not supporting the genocide.

Like it or not, a significant portion of the country is in favor of supporting Israel, and so they have to walk the line of supporting Israel without supporting genocide, because if they don't they also lose.

Republicans can campaign on being pro-genocide, give weapons to Israel on the condition they use them with less discretion, and make a campaign promise to deny asylum to any refugees and they don't lose a vote.
Democrats have to support Israel and Palestine, which is nearly impossible to do without a degree of "please don't use this gun wrong like you have every other time".

If you actually don't see how a Republican administration would be vastly worse for Palestinians, I don't know what to tell you.

https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-israel-has-valid-reasons-for-fighting-fewer-say-the-same-about-hamas/

Your easiest bet is to find a teardown video and pause when they have the case off.

The coil is the coil shaped bit in the black plastic on the left.

Technically, you could get one of those meters that measures the power draw of a device, hook it to a wireless charging puck and slide it around. The power draw will be higher the more closely aligned the two coils are.
Going that far is going to be really fiddly and probably not worth the trouble though.

I know that in general, proverbs are difficult to translate because they assume a lot of cultural knowledge to convey their idea.

Like if I say to you "bird in the hand", you'll understand that I'm referencing the notion that there's value to a sure thing that can outweigh the value of potentially having more.

If you ever watch a UN speech, the translators sometimes pause for a bit to figure out how to convey not just the literal words, but also the meaning and the meaning in context.

• onion sorrow
• the horse did not roll
• There are elderberries in the kitchen garden, and your uncle in Kiev

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31114-4?xid=PS_smithsonian

I know I've read a handful of things roughly a long these line, that basically it's probably not universal that humans simplify language for infants, but that we likely do shift how we vocalize to them.

Seems like a reasonably plausible hypothesis to me.

Eh, it doesn't need to be, you just need to do the work of putting together granular access controls that can account for your risk profiles.

The risk isn't much different between a company owned telephone and a personal telephone.
They're both susceptible to most of the same attacks, or being left on the bus.