Here you go, from the repo:

  const visitAd = function (ad) {
    function timeoutError(xhr) {
      return onVisitError.call(xhr, {
        type: 'timeout'
      });
    }

    const url = ad && ad.targetUrl, now = markActivity();

    // tell menu/vault we have a new attempt
    broadcast({
      what: 'adAttempt',
      ad: ad
    });

    if (xhr) {

      if (xhr.delegate.attemptedTs) {

        const elapsed = (now - xhr.delegate.attemptedTs);

        // TODO: why does this happen... a redirect?
        warn('[TRYING] Attempt to reuse xhr from ' + elapsed + " ms ago");

        if (elapsed > visitTimeout)
          timeoutError();
      }
      else {

        warn('[TRYING] Attempt to reuse xhr with no attemptedTs!!', xhr);
      }
    }

    ad.attempts++;
    ad.attemptedTs = now;

    if (!validateTarget(ad)) return deleteAd(ad);

    return sendXhr(ad);
    // return openAdInNewTab(ad);
    // return popUnderAd(ad)
  };

  const sendXhr = function (ad) {

    // if we've parsed an obfuscated target, use it
    const target = ad.parsedTargetUrl || ad.targetUrl;

    log('[TRYING] ' + adinfo(ad), ad.targetUrl);

    xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();

    try {
      xhr.open('get', target, true);
      xhr.withCredentials = true;
      xhr.delegate = ad;
      xhr.timeout = visitTimeout;
      xhr.onload = onVisitResponse;
      xhr.onerror = onVisitError;
      xhr.ontimeout = onVisitError;
      xhr.responseType = ''; // 'document'?;
      xhr.send();
    } catch (e) {
      onVisitError.call(xhr, e);
    }
  }

  const onVisitResponse = function () {

    this.onload = this.onerror = this.ontimeout = null;

    markActivity();

    const ad = this.delegate;

    if (!ad) {

      return err('Request received without Ad: ' + this.responseURL);
    }

    if (!ad.id) {

      return warn("Visit response from deleted ad! ", ad);
    }

    ad.attemptedTs = 0; // reset as visit no longer in progress

    const status = this.status || 200, html = this.responseText;

    if (failAllVisits || status < 200 || status >= 300) {
      return onVisitError.call(this, {
        status: status,
        responseText: html
      });
    }

    try {

      if (!isFacebookExternal(this, ad)) {

        updateAdOnSuccess(this, ad, parseTitle(this));
      }

    } catch (e) {

      warn(e.message);
    }

    xhr = null; // end the visit
  };

That’s pretty much it! Let me know if it doesn’t make sense, I can annotate it

from * import *

Very resourceful, I love it. If you remember, I’d be interested in seeing the finished product, but either way I hope it turns out great! Nice job making the time for something like this!

That’s so cool! Is it plaster? I really like the stone lines

Sorry, my brain won’t let me move on:

Some of those that work forces.

Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”

Ban me too, please? I’d prefer to not stumble across whatever you’re hosting.

I thought ambagious was a typo of ambiguous. New word day!

DON’T MISS THE WWE SUMMERCRITICIZE!

I don’t have experience with it personally, only heard about it from a possibility perspective – apparently prosecutors do a very thorough job screening jurors to make sure that never happens. Just knowing about jury nullification can get you dismissed. I don’t think you’re off the mark with that read, but where I think it comes back from kangaroo court and sov cit land is all jurors have to agree, even one objection to a nullification would stop it; if twelve strangers all agree, there’s probably some merit to it. But, certainly can be abused in the wrong hands.

Right, that’s my point – jury nullification is the mechanism by which juries find that a crime was committed by the letter of the law but the defendent is not guilty.

This is exactly what jury nullification is for

A fellow opposum!

Uppies for all of you!

Put your foot down everywhere then – it’s a fallacy to think that it’s not worth it to resist data harvesting because it already gets collected “everywhere” anyway, take one step at a time to make it harder and harder. Opting out of this is just one step.

Isn’t reducing the size of the dataset worth it? I’d rather them have a picture from three years ago than a new scan every month or two.

It’s not such a binary thing as winning or losing, it’s a constantly shifting process. The only way to actually lose is by giving up – instead, consider it making it as hard as possible for your privacy to be infringed upon. Sometimes it’s more inconvenient, but what makes us such a farmable populace is our reluctance to be inconvenienced. Be good at being uncomfortable.

I refused, it went fine. I had to repeat myself because it was unexpected and dudebro wasn’t prepared, and they had to turn on the other machine and wait for it to start up, but it only delayed me like 2 minutes. The more people ask, the easier it gets.

Mine is sate vs satiate

If you put someone on a wall hook, would they then have been hung? Likewise if I suspend my painting with a noose, has the painting been hanged?