I've not encountered a non-white LED that was even vaguely visible through a layer of black electrical tape, and there's always room for a second layer.
213 karma · joined June 14, 2022
Twitter, being the de facto modern public square, should soon be covered by this type of legislation.
There are articles in Wikipedia which will _always_ convey a certain perspective. Edits to them will always be reverted. The reverters will not engage with the audit process. The senior staff will not challenge those reverters. The procedure to handle this situation will not work. Arguments will be made that make literally no sense and will yet be accepted. If you persist in trying to make those changes your account will be banned on spurious grounds.
I hope we can see the expansion of this legislation soon to cover the modern ways in which people communicate and the modern town square.
There's a big big narrative being pushed by people who, for one reason or another, really can't stand Elon.
A lot of them are absurdly far left.
There are a lot fewer insane takes being posted by accounts that may or may not be bots, but I'm not really missing that as they just derailed the conversation.
I get the impression that more 'normal' people are now using the platform; the quality and ... coherence ... of replies has gone way up.
Also happy to see a lot less engagement from 'people' that post insane takes then meme out and block when questioned.
They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralism,' the meaning of which is well understood.
So the problem isn't 'tolerating bad faith weaponized speech' but rather tolerating 'violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives.'
The second does not follow on from the first.
Also, what is (and who defines) 'weaponized speech'?
Likewise, who defines 'bad faith'?
Yes, but that entity is clearly violating the law and is archiving material that is already (by definition) archived by somebody, just not publicly accessible. This strategy is about preserving the more valuable non-alternatively-archived data.
> Even the act of doing it would imply that they expect to lose.
They're clearly violating the law, they've lost already on a similar case, if they don't expect to lose they should fire their counsel.
There's a reason the .gov domain exists.
Modern grids are designed to keep those losses down.
If the losses weren't a factor the grids would be designed differently. Very differently. As in, North Africa would be so full of solar panels the generating fields would be visible from space.
You think them saying 'we understand that the web archive is a valuable resource of data which isn't under legal attack, and to best serve the needs of the public we'll ring-fence that resource by spinning it off as a separate legal entity that won't be affected by any legal action that may be taken against us while we fight a (more) contentious battle' would result in less sympathy for them?
How so?
As you seem concerned about the existence of the archive being endangered I presume you agree.
Trivial fix here - split off the non-contentious archiving (the web archive / wayback machine) into a separate legal entity from the contentious archiving.
That preserves the more-irreplaceable material (the web archive.)
I can think of a much more prudent way to do that, namely, by legally segregating their non-contentious archiving (the wayback machine et al) from their legally contentious archiving such that legal threats to one entity cannot disrupt the other entity.
The page you've linked says: "Copyright protection is effectively never lost, unless explicitly given away or the copyright has expired. However, if you do not actively defend your copyright, there may be broader unauthorized uses than you would like."
How on earth did you read that and come to the conclusion that BYU 'asserts (sic) the opposite' ?
Perfectly 'approachable' even on mobile devices.
The only thing that makes sites like this and that 'unapproachable' is stunningly high (genuine, not stat-massaged) levels of functional illiteracy.
Barstaff don't get tips in the UK
It's more likely that on quiet nights/days it's simply not cost effective to open. During a weekday a small pub might literally have one or two customers. They're traditionally owner-operated for a reason, and the reason is because the margins don't allow for staff.
>Did you intend to be offensive, or was it just the easiest way to describe a certain group of people?
Did you find what they wrote offensive? It isn't clear.
If yes, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) was offensive?
If you in particular didn't find what they wrote offensive but believe that others might find it offensive, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) do you believe that others would find offensive?
This is very very hard to parse BTW. I don't want to reply to what you've written because I can't determine for sure what it is that you're saying.
My opinion is that a lot of people think murderers are less than human, full stop.
I don't know how my opinion can coherently be described as a fallacy when it's what I believe.