Bilaketari

QR codes are mostly meant to let you get an amount of info (they're mostly text-based) without having to type or enter it manually when you might make mistakes or when the process is just faster for the amount of text involved.

If it becomes standard for public parking to be signed, everyone would know. If payment QR codes in general start being signed, your payment app might even know. Lastly there could even be signage by the code to help novices.

Plenty of people I know have gotten the little echo dots or the bigger alternative with larger speakers for Christmas or birthdays. Technically they didn't spend money, but their friends and family did.

Does it make a difference that the tea is never in the microwave? It's only the method for heating a single cup of water, not of heating the water+tea set.

I think part if the motivation here would be to allow the doctor present at a school to determine whether a child is participating in the correct sex-appropriate placement. Like using the correct locker rooms or bathrooms in case teachers or other students bring up an issue (for example if a boy were to go into a girl's locker room and claim to really be a girl). Since appearance doesn't line up with sex in many cases nowadays, the inspection would be to determine the real sex of the individual. Some school activities will involve nudity (changing before entering a swimming pool, communal showering after a sports match or gym class, etc.) so the authors of this were initially pushing for any teacher (such as the supervisor in a locker room or the teacher of the associated class) to be able to inspect/determine the sex of the individual.

Neither. Tea bags are for chumps. It's so much tastier to use fresher loose tea leaves of whatever mix you prefer (and you can control how strong you make it, plus you end up with less waste). I just boil the water in the microwave then when it's hot I take it out and add the tea.

You could disagree, but I think it's out of touch to suggest most of the US (or at least most of the voting center in swing states) would prefer her over a moderate. And that would be the biggest factor in determining who would win an election.

This seems to be a gross misunderstanding of public key cryptography. Public keys allow you to verify an existing signature is valid and made by the correct entity, but they absolutely don't allow you to forge a signature: that's actually what they are designed to prevent.

You pay CAs for certificate issuance, not for signing. You could sign all the QR codes in a city with a single CA-issued certificate as long as the standards for it were all accepted.

Well, because it won't be signed by a trusted CA for that task. Like if CAs had a category of certificate issuance that applied here (the standardisation issue) then it would be easy to spot a fake (which wouldn't be correctly signed). Alternatively, you could take the European approach of having everything government related (like public street parking, though Europe mostly uses apps for that, not signed QR codes) rely on government entities and those in turn on a national set of government CAs.

Licking a wound isn't grooming or maintenance though.

It's to do with where people stand. Most people in the US, despite their rhetoric, would be more centrist than many people realize (and between both major parties). That means most aren't in agreement with much of what Trump is doing internationally or with respect to Musk/DOGE in application, though most might support broad ideas of 'putting the US first', 'reducing the size/cost of the US government', 'stopping illegal immigration/deporting illegal immigrants' etc. But crucially, this also means that most eligible voters are also right of the vocal elements of the left that play up political correctness, identity politics, and social economic policy (economic policy further left-wing than what we see at the moment). So in an election, if neither side really aligns with the majority of voters, it's easy to see how voters can be swayed by voting against the current party in power, voting due to marketing/propaganda, or voting against the party that seems most radical in ways that differ from voters' ideas/interests. Trump didn't campaign on annexing Canada, or invading Greenland, but he did campaign on deporting illegal immigrants and reducing the size of government. And many people saw Harris as a continuation of Biden but with a more socially liberal (or further left on this) attitude and a stronger association with identity politics. So if Trump in his first term didn't do much that most people would consider lasting harm (despite his antics and buffoonery) and campaigned on ideas that the majority agree with, whereas Harris was a continuation of an unpopular presidency/government (at least at the end) but with a flair of things that most people don't align with, well, the result speaks for itself: a landslide in the electoral college. The only way forward for democrats is to capitalise on the mistakes Trump is making (unpopular decisions and attitudes), to seem reasonable and grounded to the majority, and to not veer off and start pushing for social issues most of the voting center doesn't really buy (so for example focus on creating a better immigration system and treating immigrants fairly, but not legalising illegal immigrants. Or pushing for general social protections, workers' rights, consumer rights, better and broader healthcare coverage and business regulation without straying into a focus on minority rights, trans terminology battles, antireligious discourse or attacking tradionalists/older folks' viewpoints.) If you can win the center you can win the election. And you do that by appealing to the traditional center (and definitely not by antagonising it).