cabaalis

It seems a benchmark of a transformative technology is whether or not people attempt to use the legal system to stop it.

From https://reason.com/2022/09/28/a-parodist-asks-scotus-to-let-... :

> Eleven Facebook users called the police department's nonemergency line about Novak's spoof, which was the basis for the claim that he had disrupted police operations. When the case was presented to a grand jury, Detective Thomas Connor claimed the callers "honest to God believed" that Novak's creation was the department's official page. But when Novak sued Connor and six other officers, the Institute for Justice notes in its Supreme Court petition, "Connor admitted at deposition that none of the callers thought that."

I'm pretty sure we all know why this person was arrested, and that there is only one way the court should rule.

Chesterton's fence seems to apply here.

> Star Citizen gathers its funding from players by selling in-game space ships.

How is this called "funding" and not just "sales" or "dlc?"

Naming who appointed judges when writing articles about their decisions is a dog whistle. Change my mind.

I was in Costa Rica recently and a tour guide pulled a fruit about the size of my fist from a tree. He quizzed us on what the top of the fruit was. We could not identify it. We ended up feeding it to a cow.

It was a single cashew.

That experience changed my perception of supply chain, you can buy thousands of those for very low price. The fruit is huge and you get just one nut!

Read this policy as "we prohibit others from doing what we ultimately will be doing, so we can prevent anyone else from taking the lead."

This just means there is a stabilizing force trying to maintain peace and status quo while figures on either sides of issues sway the long game.

Either people have and live by principles or they don't. Part of our division is these sides you speak of, instructing their followers what to believe about individual topics.

I'm hoping to one day be "Windows adds user root folder to the quick links in explorer by default" years old.

If you like this you may enjoy the YouTube channel "Tasting History" https://youtube.com/c/TastingHistory

This is a lot of effort to express opposition to repealing section 230. Their timeline starts with that event.

I've only seen Veretasium YouTube video on this a few days ago, and I'm not a mathematician. Is the joke that LLVM has solved the mystery by optimizing out what it decided is an infinite loop?

Even if one agrees these are good things and needed, why does our congress not pass these laws individually so they can be voted and understood for their own worth?

Here's an article from the NYT about how they are trying to ethically sell Hunter Biden's artwork. "Ethically sell" was a term I chose specifically because Hunter Biden is not an artist, and the question of why his paintings are being sold for half a million dollars and to whom is substance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/us/politics/hunter-biden-...

Edit: Anyone can be an artist of course. Selling artwork for such a price would be quite an artist.

I agree with you, but I'm pretty sure the age of social media has us in the minority.

It appears this analysis is limited to freshwater species. I wish that werent the case. It would be nice to be able to share the "higher rate than the extinction of the dinosaurs event" statement without that big old "but" attached.

> Requiring the publication of arrests makes it harder for the police to disappear people.

I see this so much in our society. A reaction to a "bad" practice which was actually invented to combat another "bad" practice. It leads me to believe there is just no way to contractualize human behavior over a sufficiently long period of time.

> Viewing of the video and the conversations about it took place as Garner was 10 feet away in a cell, according to Schielke. [0]

It's inhumane behavior, like one would see Roman soldiers in a movie or soldiers in game of thrones.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/30/us/loveland-police-officers-k...

If you can pay someone to do something, that thing you are paying for is a problem which has already been solved by someone, therefore not a problem.

How was this allowed to go for 20 years without her knowing or facing the charges? What options does she have? Hasnt she been deprived of a right to speedy trial, leaving a lifetime of troubles for lost wages?

Happens all the time. They even used to publish lists of unclaimed funds in the paper. It's occurred to me twice in my lifetime.

Can you describe the meaning of passwordless multi factor? What replaces the "something you know" in this case?

> 1. It is our wish that those of our estates which we have established to minister to our needs shall serve our purposes entirely and not those of other men.

It seems like anti-moonlighting clauses are as old as time.

An example of how the educators drive the narrative for the future.

Pretty sure a hacker would be perpetrating an actual, punishable-by-trial crime in forging those legal documents. That's generally the first regulation that the US imposes.

A disinclination to regulate anything is a good idea in a society that generally punishes bad behavior after the behavior has been perpetrated. I would have doubts for instance about government regulating the process for sending and receiving SMS - would you want every new software or protocol to have to go through some kind of bureaucratic review before it can be used?

> but I thought we were against for-profit education?

So it just .. shouldn't be allowed? Free markets allow you to set your price for your abilities and have agency over your future. If I want to charge people something to teach them something, I don't want a group of hackers telling me I can't.

Roblox piggy has that title.

> I fundamentally don't understand why the Times didn't explain this early on.

Sure you do! Context is not important in our age. Reaction is what matters. Let's hope we don't live to see the day when pre-action is what matters.

FTA:

> The night the program aired, the C.E. Hooper ratings service telephoned 5,000 households for its national ratings survey.

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._E._Hooper]:

> Compared to the earlier Crossley ratings, Hooperatings had the advantage of not depending on respondents remembering what they had listened to earlier in the day. However, they still only sampled an urban rather than rural population. They also failed to account for the millions of households at the time which had a radio set but no telephone.

Seems like the answer is somewhere in the middle.