Agreed. Avakian is fascinating because he's so entitled in the article. If someone doesn't want to buy his product he just rails against how unfair they were to him.
Bro: it's business. If your product were nearly as good as you claim it is, you wouldn't need to force people into using it.
Also, the end of the article points out that Walgreens has been terribly mismanaged and is a very low-performing company, and they're still experimenting with screens, just not with Avakian. Hilarious.
I think the question has two answers:
Are they locked from the outside? And are the locked from the inside?
My understanding is that they are actually locked. Here are two links with some information.
First, there's an interesting bit of lore about the doors on the space shuttle that might shed some insight:
*What happens when an astronaut in orbit says he’s not coming back? [Ars Technica]*
Apparently the Space Shuttle originally had a handle for opening the door that was found after the shuttle entered use to have a bad habit of instilling a bit of "call-of-the-void". They eventually added a padlock. Also, it should be noted that these doors are not Star Trek-like sliding doors with a bunch of electronics. They're much more like submarine bulkheads with big-ass mechanics, as I understand it. This was on the shuttle, but I think the design logic of the ISS was inherited from the space shuttle.
Second is this post on Stack Exchange:
User TidalWave explains how hatches in general on the ISS are not accessible from the outside. They're opened from the inside. I would assume that some exceptions probably exist for edge cases. They must have had a way to get in the first time, for instance. But by and large, it appears that the ISS is not accessible from the outside.
That sounds like you've done a lot of interesting reading and thinking at least.
I suspect if you forced yourself to just sit down and write on the subject more would come out than you'd expect.
First, I think it helps to share an old adage:
Two Jews: three opinions.
We're famously discursive. In any situation it should be assumed that Israelis are in a tense debate about nearly everything.
The families of remaining hostages in particular want a ceasefire because its a prerequisite for returning loved ones (or at least rematriating their remains). Many people also recognize that the war has no honorable or defensive purpose and is tearing apart society, fomenting regional tensions, destroying support on the world stage, and placing a huge toll on reservists and their families.
You are correct, though: as long as Netanyahu and allies are in power, every other voice is a reed in a monsoon flood.
Normally I'd agree, but The Guardian is actually usually an outlier in this regard:
Israel accused of act of genocide over restriction of Gaza water supply [Dec. 19]
Defining genocide: how a rift over Gaza sparked a crisis among scholars [Dec. 20]
A consensus is emerging: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Where is the action? [Dec. 23]
'Secretary of genocide': Blinken speech on Middle East interrupted by protester – video [Today]
I can't help but notice that the article describes conditions that are clearly intended to kill, cause serious bodily harm, and deliberately inflict on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
It really seems like there's a word for that. It's weird that the article describes those conditions without using any particular word that those conditions describe.
I normally like the Guardian, but that article feels weird because I don't know why it can't just say that Gaza's condition is that of an unambiguous genocide in progress.
It's an interesting article, because to be honest, it feels like an attempt to create news more than cover it. Two-hundred or so objectors is paltry, frankly. If anything, I think the lack of dissenters in Israel is a more notable point of news.
But then again, refusing to serve and criticizing Netanyahu can be a very frightening and risky thing to do. The culture is brutal, and the head of police in particular, Ben G'vir, is a hardline fascist who doesn't tolerate challenges to the ruling government. So we'll see what happens.
I love this.
I read it to my brother, and he commented something to the effect of 'This right here is exactly what Fully Automated exists for.'
It's true! You could tell entire stories set just in this sub-setting of the world!
I'd like to just clarify a point which I think @froh42@lemmy.world is making as well.
My concern about censorship is not based on "fairness" or being sympathetic to voices I disagree with. I'm strictly speaking about effectiveness.
Creating rules about what ideas aren't allowed to be expressed has a particular set of strengths and weaknesses that have to be understood in order for this tool to be used effectively.
The strength is that it can slow dissemination of dangerous ideas. Restrictions on certain types of speech can be very effective for that. The weakness is that it cannot eliminate the infectiousness of an idea. Additionaly: suppressed ideas which have appeal may spread widely without opponents knowing about it, and opponents of these ideas may not develop counter-messaging that diminishes the appeals of these ideas. Lastly, restrictions on speech can create an evolutionary pressure on words and ideas to specifically find the weaknesses in the restrictions. A ban on saying certain words inherently creates a list of things you can say instead.
Taken altogether, prohibitions on speech or ideas are a lot like antibiotics. They're very powerful and effective, but they lose their efficacy with use. And overusing them can actually lead to a complete breakdown in their efficacy. So they must be used in concert with a wide array of ecosystem health measures to limit their need.
You might say 'Why worry? They've worked so far.' But if you do, that over reliance can lead to a catastrophic failure.
Tbf sometimes I see really bad lefty memes on here, so when I saw a good I felt like I had to provide a demonstration.
(It's gotta fit the format, people.)
How do you figure? I think this is pretty standard. Frankly I'm relieved that it's not longer.