None of the articles I found went into more detail than the NY Times one. What they all say in common is that the French researcher was denied entrance. If the US version is true (and I can't be sure either way), then the presupposition would be that individual was already on a DHS list, not that customs necessarily found it.
As for whether they knowingly let a spy leave, that would depend on a full timeline.
> As for whether they knowingly let a spy leave, that would depend on a full timeline.
No it does not if the defense for denying him entry was knowing that he was a spy?
Stop arguing out of both sides of your mouth. So far both proffered explanations are unacceptable.
To be clear the two answers so far have been,
1: we found personal comments of him on his phone critical of the administration and denied him entry based on that, which is unacceptable on free speech grounds
Or
2: he was known or found to have secrets from one of our nuclear labs and was denied entry based on the fact that we knew he had these forbidden files, and we let him go. This is unacceptable on national security grounds.
That's a false dichotomy. The severity depends on what the individual attempted to remove. Nuclear secrets might be unacceptable to allow him to leave. Something more administrative might not be worth the jurisdiction hassle to prosecute but still get the individual flagged against re-entry.
If he stole documents I don’t want my government only flagging him for denial to reentry. If he stole documents from our nuclear labs I want him in cuffs.
How am I being inconsistent if your “false dichotomy” claim persists?
I didn't say anything about Inconsistency, so I will set that to the side.
My entire point is that these things are seldom so black and white as put forward. The US administration has a self serving answer, but so do the French and this anonymous scientist. Which do you think is less professionally damaging for a European, being denied entrance due to views on American politics or being denied based on mishandling of classified material?
In an ideal world, I would prefer to see any mishandling of classification prosecuted, that seldom is how it works.
Without knowing a timeline, it isn't even clear which administration was running things under which events.
Nothing in your response outlined a possibility that was not in 1 of the 2 options given by my own government.
I don't give a fuck what the French or Europeans think. I am holding my own government accountable to what are ostensibly the values we share(freedom of speech and national security) and finding them lacking. It requires zero input from the French scientist in question for me to be upset with the situation
And no, I don't need a timeline to understand this because my problem with the government's own explanation does not have a time based component
> the critical difference between secular ideology and religious ideology is that (in a properly functioning society) you can challenge/question/probe secular ideology.
This feels like an odd statement, given how many of the most repressive regimes in human history were or are secular. Maybe the "properly functioning" part is doing the heavy lifting, but if so, it makes the statement almost meaningless.
> Require human moderation. That naturally limits scale.
Does it? Does a human need to examine everything posted? You can certainly send letters without them going through a human moderator. Only what is flagged by a scanner? What if nothing is flagged? What should be flagged?
One major failing of WebDAV for these use cases is that the spec requires you to `PUT` the whole resource/file in order to save changes. This isn't too bad when the individual files are small, but as your single file apps grow, this means a lot of data transfer without the comforts of differential uploads.
> One of my own pet peeves in Forged In Fire was that every contestant would submit Damascus (-style) blades for their final showdowns. It just wasn’t necessary and often just looked trashy.
Agreed. There was a much smaller emphasis on Damascus steel in early seasons. If you go back and rewatch you can see the frequency pick up as they praised and required Damascus more and more.
I think part of the reason is just the visual factor- TV screens don't do a particularly good job of showing off solid colored blades compared to how they look in person.
On top of that, I believe it is easier to run into problems with delamination, or that a small flaw can more easily be a larger problem.
If anything, it seems like an added challenge to demonstrate that you can do it, as a way to distinguish the blade in the final judging if it performed similarly to the others.
Ultimately, though, it's still just showmanship and not an actual indication of the quality of the blade itself. It's a TV show, after all.
