Having worked in classified areas, both as an admin and an unprivileged user, CDs were normally the method of transferring data up the network. (Transferring down rarely occurred, and even then you’d be limited to plaintext files or printouts.)

I’ve seen more places use data diodes to perform one- or two-way transfers so that requests can be streamlined and there’s no loose media to worry about tracking. It’s not super fast and higher speeds mean more expensive equipment, but it covers 98% of software update needs, and most non-admin file transfers were under 20MB anyways.

Anything that did require a USB drive, like special test equipment (STE) or BIOS updates, had to use a FIPS-140-1 approved drive that offered a ready-only mode via PIN. This drive could only be written to from a specific workstation that was isolated from the rest of the machines (where data was transferred via CDs of course) and required two persons to perform the job to ensure accountability.

Not the most time-efficient way of doing things, and not completely bulletproof, but it works well enough to keep things moving forward.

Thanks for linking to the reports. I pulled September’s to review and was shocked at the amount of disasters still funded for recovery/operations. Considering my own reaction, I don’t think people realize just how many simultaneous projects are still being managed and how long they’ve taken to use up funds. (Not the fault of FEMA; Louisiana apparently requested an extension to use $1.66B in 2022 as it couldn’t exhaust it by the Aug 2023 deadline.) A lot of the money is already committed or awarded and waiting to be spent. Handling so many projects at the same time explains the sudden drain you see from some months. All of this is categorized down to each region receiving funds per disaster response. Simple enough to track.

I’ve jokingly said this before, but just wait until manufacturers start adding 4G/5G to TVs explicitly for ads and telemetry…

Oh most certainly. I attended BYU Provo and there was a lot of effort from students to allow the sale of caffeinated soda on campus, but the belief was that the university was holding out only because a large number of alumni might stop donating if it were to occur.

(This was more recent though.)

The culture amongst members can and often will have items that seem to go against or misinterpret official doctrine. I don’t disagree that the church would need to reiterate the doctrine to clear that up for people. What I personally don’t know is how often is appropriate for such corrections to take place. If you correct them too often they may choose to not seek out answers themselves but instead wait for a leader to explain it to them, which runs against the teaching of proactive scripture study.

Ok, I should stop there. Starting to nitpick human nature as though I’m any better (and we know that’s not fucking true in the slightest, lol)

One assumes that a god would be able to formulate a standard that can be applied cleanly, to everything, and communicate that clearly to his prophet.

The issue wouldn’t be the god in question, but instead the people.

Consider the fact that Moses was given the Ten Commandments for all the Israelites to follow. They’re incredibly simple and straightforward. Yet there still was a division in how these were observed, which was documented well in the New Testament.

The two most notable (outlined in the New Testament) are the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees can be summarized as a group which added man-made rules or guidelines on top of the established doctrines. Certain stories, such as Christ healing a man on the Sabbath, demonstrate that the intention of a commandment can be forgotten by people who choose to observe by the letter of the law. The Sadducees can be summarized as a group which chose to observe only doctrines that are written. Both groups, however, largely ignored the foundation behind the 10 Commandments.

Christ explains it as simply as can be. Love the Lord above all else, and love they neighbor as you do yourself. The 10 Commandments were already straightforward to begin with, but the two greater commandments set the standard you suggest such a deity should be capable of doing.

Even still, as simple as they can be, the issue often becomes that some people want to be told what exactly they can or cannot do, while others want to justify their actions on the basis of technicality.

All of this to say, the doctrine for the LDS church is based on the idea of obedience towards God. It doesn’t matter why He says to not drink coffee, just that He promises you’ll be blessed if you do. So by virtue of the two greater commandments, loving God means following His instructions. And that alone should be reason enough to do so.

(Mind you, I disagree with how this is often put into practice, as a lot of guilt-tripping occurs for those who choose not to follow these teachings. At its core, these actions are antithetical to Christ’s teachings and examples, which are to love all unconditionally as we are all sinners in the eyes of the Lord. But again, the issue lies with people, who aren’t perfect, rather than the doctrines put forth.)

Like with caffeine specifically they have a long history of forbidding its use and then suddenly they reinterpreted it the way you’re suggesting.

I had to think about this. I can’t seem to find any articles in a quick search where church leaders (a Prophet or Apostle) explicitly forbade its use. I have, however, found many excerpts where leaders who do not sit at the head (Quorum of the Seventy, BIshop, etc) have made statements warning against it or even flat out saying that members should not ingest it.

Given the structure and lack of corrective statements coming from above, I would attribute the confusion to local and regional leaders being overzealous by including caffeine explicitly in their teachings. Some have worded things in a manner I would find accurate, such as “high-dose caffeinated energy drinks” or “excessive soda consumption which results in high caffeine and sugar intake.” Others though explicitly call out caffeine as an “evil,” describing experiences with caffeine withdrawals or members deciding to not ingest alcohol, nicotine, nor caffeine. These mentions seem to have drummed up confusion primarily in the 80s (a lot of “Letter to the Editor” publications from this period seem to have been back-and-forth arguments among members, lol).

Initially I didn’t think the history is as “long” as you claimed, but then I realized that the 80s was just forty years ago, and with some results of the topic dating as far back as the 70s, it would mean it’s been an intra-member debate for almost half a century. And half a century is practically a lifetime 😖

Yeah… unfortunately, confusion about this particular subject exists because members often look for the underlying justification on things and then extrapolate from there.

(I’m going to paraphrase and shorten things a lot here so we don’t have to dive into definitions and technicalities. Bear with me.)

The doctrine brought forth about this is what’s referred to as “The Word of Wisdom,” which was a short outline of what things were deemed as “harmful” or otherwise “unsuitable” for the body. The idea being that the Lord was promising to people that if they didn’t ingest these things, they would live a healthier life as a result. “Hot drinks” was mentioned and clarified a century later to mean “tea and coffee.” Furthermore, “tea” refers to black and green tea, and not necessarily herbal tea.

People, by nature, want to understand the “why” behind things. You also have people who want to understand where the line begins and ends so they can tiptoe it. Enter the rumor that since the “hot drinks” referred to “tea and coffee,” they both have not-so-insignificant amounts of caffeine in them. Obviously that must mean drinks like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, plus foods such as chocolate, must also be in violation of this, right?

Well, the issue with that is people think they’re applying “the spirit of the law” (meaning the larger picture behind it) when they’re actually applying “the word of the law” (taken at face value). The idea behind the Word of Wisdom is to take care of your body by having a balanced diet and not eating too much of a particular thing. Certain items were called out explicitly; if caffeine were the true issue, then it would’ve been called out instead. But it wasn’t, and there have been some clarifications to emphasize that caffeine itself is not the explicit reason behind it. (However the idea of “addiction” could extend to caffeine if someone were to consume large amounts of it regularly, but addiction or dependency can occur even to things like Tylenol when too much is consumed, so targeting it specifically is silly.)

So in short, it’s a mixture of misunderstanding and overzealous practice. Caffeine is perfectly fine. Just like anything else: make sure you’re not consuming too much of it.

It’s not symmetrical yet though. Which is weird.

Eh, I would say it’s to be expected. A lot of infrastructure still relies on coax/DOCSIS which has its limitations in comparison to an all-fiber backbone. (This post has some good explanations.) However it wouldn’t surprise me if some ISPs argue that “nobody needs that much uplink” and “it helps restrict piracy” when really it’s just them holding out against performing upgrades.

Oh 100% that’s what they meant. It’s just something that caught my attention as it almost appears to be an oxymoron.

In practice, “microtransaction” can mean many things. A small price, a purchase of non-unique content, or even a small quantity of unique (non-base) content. So yes, upgrading to the “deluxe” edition can fall under that description. But calling the “deluxe” content upgrade a “micro-transaction” almost appears contradictory. So I had a little chuckle while pondering this before becoming upset at how broad (and expensive) said “micro”transactions have become.

deluxe edition as a MTX

I spent a few minutes analyzing this sentence alone. Admittedly I read the rest of your argument and respect your opinion. It’s just that this is stuck in my head.

Buying the deluxe edition through a micro-transaction? My mind wants to classify this as an oxymoron. Admittedly a lot of microtransactions aren’t really micro by any stretch of the imagination but this just stands out.

Nah I didn’t read your original comment as minimizing it, but rather saw it as someone who might not be from the USA. It sounded like genuine shock to how life-saving meds could just be flat-out denied for somebody.

Let’s say you get diagnosed with a treatable autoimmune disorder. Treatment isn’t cheap, so usually someone who recently got diagnosed and referred to a specialist to perform care will find that their insurance denied approval for prescription of medications and supplies needed.

The insurance companies will want the doctor to re-submit while providing documentation of the diagnosis (as proof) and an outline of the treatment plan. The insurance company can say “your plan states six months of injections but we will only approve for three.” At that point, the patient is stuck with a three-month plan because the cost of treatment is too much to pay out of pocket and the doctor won’t go forward with a six-month plan unless the patient pays in advance for the three months that wouldn’t be covered.

Another example is rare disorders where the medication may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Insurance may decide the cost is too high and deny coverage for the prescription.

Finally, there are instances where more common issues (such as diabetes) may have the insurance artificially limit how many doses of a drug they decide to cover. If a person has a special case (like needing to take twice the amount due to tolerance or it being based on the person’s weight), insurance may deny it because it exceeds what they believe the average person should need.

All of these are examples where someone is stuck waiting for what is essentially life-saving medication just because insurance doesn’t want to pay out, or doesn’t care that you have a special scenario that requires some exceptions for it to work properly.

lol, I was alluding more towards the shaming that used to go on towards husbands who wanted sex more often than their wives and the many publications/therapists who made it seem like men were asking for too much…

“Well Sister Sheryl, are you and your husband still sleeping in different beds as you tell him to ‘bridle his passions’?”

Yup. And the only way to get them to stop is to embarrass them.

“So, when are you planning on having kids?”

“I dunno, maybe when I’m no longer infertile.”