The farm bill makes 'hemp' anything with below 0.3% THC legal. For this reason, we have a LOT of testing on the THC content of cannabis, since it is required to sell and manufacture. As it turns out, naturally cannabis quite commonly has >0.3% THC even before heating or activation of THCa.
Any human-like animal with our receptors eating a large amount would get high as fuck, cooked or not. A ruminant eating pounds of the stuff raw, would not be that different from a human consuming an ounce of baked pot.
There's a difference between "can't see 'special' folders" & "can't access anything but the app-specific storage". iOS loves the latter, while Android lets you organize files mostly normally even if doing highly stupid/discouraging things for power users & some app developers making questionable non-default choices.
The history lesson is appreciated but how does this relate to the current state of the stock file explorer that ships with the OS? I’m using my phone now and not ten years ago.
edit: oh, I think I get it. My original post wasn't intended to be read "iOS invented the file explorer, has Android also a file explorer app" (which would be silly, of course) but "when Files app released, the AOSP file explorer that commonly ships as the default was lacking, has this improved (caught up to Files app)"
I've seen this on occasion before, but the offering seems vague and confusing to me.
But asking to see if clarification is available:
* No API access at all. Is that correct?
* Usage limits aren't at all clearly defined, but their presence is suggested. Message per day/month, tokens per whatever limits?
* Content policy restrictions? They mention major models/providers.
* An actual list of models available? GPT, etc, are cool if that's all you need, but what about major/popular open source models?
* Encrypted/protected user content is mentioned, but do you allow verification by users that this is the case for compliance reasons? (This makes me think of providers that let you verify the nature of the secure computation yourself.)
This looks neat in theory, but there's nothing that goes into the exact technical nature of the offering. You may consider these suggestions for what might assist discerning technical users to have enough information about the service vs competitors that disclose all relevant information about the service up-front.
As an anecdote, there may be one or two packages in openwrt that won't build by default because of a strange interaction between certain glibc headers and the behavior of _FORTIFY_SOURCE on some embedded platforms, but only on some versions of gcc.
Werror tends to be placed eagerly pass the buck along to anyone building it, not just CI or developers. I used to feel that Werror was a good thing, but nowadays anything with CI on merge requests will tell me about any warnings, and someone wanting to build the software shouldn't get penalized for having a different build environment: there's a reason they aren't thrown as errors to begin with. Does this make sense?
> Every human has their own hierarchies. Hierarchies of need, of goals and of peers (this is basically each individual's social hierarchy). But when these people form large groups they are somehow able to blank the slate and not make it hierarchical?
I'm probably being silly in doing so, but just pointing out that neurodiversity is a thing, and I don't know if you've noticed, but rarely do people simply do what they're told.
Both are not bioactive by default in their natural form.