Hallucinaut

Online meetings leave evidence.

NZ is exceedingly plain so I don't get that comment. Most are of the form 1337 Great North Road Pt. Chevalier Auckland 1002

You could even omit Auckland as it's implied by the simple 1000-series postcode.

The property boom may have led to subdivisions making a 1337/2 necessary but the vast majority of buildings outside of metro areas are detached, single family properties.

His Twitter internship put paid to that notion for me.

if only someone could invent a device with physical buttons that could connect to a device like a tablet or other computer.

All things are liquid if the transaction fees are big enough

Great analogy. Lovely way of thinking about it.

Also try to go outside of regular hours, often meaning finding alternative transport. At least in Angkor Wat you don't have to take a bus and then outside of those core hours you have lots of alone time.

Granted this experience was pre-iPhone so the specific example may not hold!

If it is a public square, then it is so because the majority of people choose to use it because of the controls and filtering and exclusion of "undesirables". If it's a company with a reach in billions that's because it provides, in its current form including filtering, a service that is valued (in attention time, if not dollars) by its users.

If one compels a Twitter to host things it has decided people don't want to see, why aren't we compelling the Kochs and Murdoch's of the world to support equally "leftist" positions? It's frankly an incoherent position that Twitter should be compelled to behave a certain way and yet Rupert can continue spouting his propaganda for literal generations unimpeded.

It's still an absolute dumpster fire regardless.

My favourite brainwave on UBI was to brand it a negative income tax. Would stymie a lot of the more traditional fiscal conservative arguments (albeit not going to counter the drive for regressive rates).

If you're saying there's no evidence in terms of accounting audit for money going to addicts on Skid Row then, well, good luck with that bar of evidence.

I have seen him let the Whittaker family buy trolleys full of stuff from Walmart for their house. I have seen that prostitute (Angel maybe?) interviewed a second time after he paid for her rent and gave her money multiple times after the first video and it turned out she was just giving it to her pimp (and she doesn't refute any of this on camera).

So does he deserve total faith based trust, no, but it's easy to see enough of his videos where they are clearly benefiting from the funds and that's probably enough for many of us to say it's net positive.

"They" also ban anyone not supporting Trump from posting to their site

...or from forever blocking nonsense unscientific articles from a newsfeed

...or from wearing a shirt that's pro-Democrat at a convention

...or from bringing scientific consensus into Fox talking heads shows

...or from posting on their subreddit unless certified by a peer as being sufficiently conservative

That your post focuses singularly on denial of Republican establishment talking points shows the real intent implied by those pushing such laws, without any consideration that the "cancel culture" has been a deep tradition pervasive in media and American life on both sides of the aisle.

It may seem a bizarre tangent... but humour me: you don't know any of the members of Radiohead do you? Right town, time and age.

I'm echoing what others have said but as a Commonwealth citizen turned British citizen with a grandmother who was the same age but died last year, I can't help but feel an extended member of my family has passed.

I am not a monarchist by any means, but I felt an attachment and affection for the Queen that made me value the institution. I know she led a privileged life but ceaseless service and consistency across literal generations is, to my view, no easy ride.

Rest in peace

I think a lot about UI but have never thought about a temporally driven setting before. Great idea!

Or the author intended it for HR to read with the implicit critique "don't send me trash" (from their perspective of course, saying nothing about OP)

Agree. Really clickbait phrasing for a gas giant planet no less that has no chance of harbouring organic life ecosystems.

I was looking at this just last night and the story with Ubuntu is horrible. That's essentially going to be stuck on v3.4 for ten years because it's "a lot of work" to get into that distribution.

You'd think an entity the size of RedHat trying to take the reins from Docker would understand that this is an investment they have to make to make it a first-class replacement.

I also installed it on Windows to see how the WSL engine works but now it conflicts with my existing v3 Podman installation on Ubuntu 20.04 in WSLv2 so I guess I'm out of luck.

Also may be of interest to people here but Podman desktop had a release yesterday. It's pretty primitive and I couldn't get it to work to use my existing auth.json but it's there.

It was a pretty frustrating experience when all I wanted was to be able to "podman login" to a local repository so Jib would pull down base layers correctly.

Merits of this particular case aside, as it seems like it would be a generous good faith assumption, given your general statement, in your ideal world when do we start harbouring criminal suspicions on a process that happens to between one and two thirds of all women?

23 weeks is the size of a grapefruit. 12 weeks is the size of the lime; is that small enough for you that you wouldn't put a woman going through the trauma of a miscarriage (or abortion) through criminal investigation?

Do we need to automatically assume that when a woman wants to not just flush it down the toilet like waste that is reason for suspicion?

May you never have a partner who has a miscarriage and then has to decide whether to put themselves at the mercy of the criminal system whether they go through "proper channels".

No more than excising a cancer is, before the age of viability. Early on, it's just cells.

Haven't done the search myself but... Novacaine for the soul?

There is definitely the concept of the anti-joke. Anti-humour has the wiki page.

The sadly-late Norm Macdonald was a good proponent.

Fwiw though I watched this after your post and I'd say that's not really the same. I'm not sure what you call this technique in speeches with such a setup but it adds great emotional gravity and is something I see and appreciate a lot in speeches like this (or even shows like The Good Place which is incredible but can't be described further without spoilers).

Ha I just made a similar comment. A fellow Contact fan I see!

"Why build one when you could build two for twice the cost?"

Isn't the vaccine derived polio simply because it's the cheap version? If that's correct then the direct answer to your somewhat rhetorical question is: subsidise the expensive version globally so that we don't have to later pay for the externalities caused by a riskier vaccine?

These are still versioned in many serious finance systems

Can't believe they'd try to sue over that. For one, it's pretty much only critical of the Mowbrays themselves and I can't see anything in there that wouldn't be an honest opinion so safeguarded by NZ law.

So it comes across to me like the Mowbrays personally trying to stomp someone into the ground with legal fees knowing they have no case. Hopefully the legal system can protect them from that exploitative use.

Seems on song with that basis of the comment, doesn't it?

Yup you've got it. I believe one of the brothers bought the compound in NZ north of Auckland that Kim Dotcom lived in (and was raised in iirc).

https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/the-life/my-net-worth-nic...

And there he was a decade later telling Elon how easy it would be to whip up a Twitter...

When a comment leads with a provable falsehood, that "the" COVID vax (already a rampant simplification) "only" reduces risk of a bad case, and that, by implication, there's no reduction in transmission or reduction in duration or reduction in severity of mild cases, there's not much charity to be given.

Using your analogy, it's like if someone questioned the claimed efficiency of solar panels "given the Earth is flat after all". It shows a fundamental divergence from observed fact and science.