cheph

They eased lockdowns and the daily case and death count on the day they implemented the regional stay at home order was higher than on the day they revoked it, which was about a month ago, and since then the downward trend has continued.

What exactly are the more effective lockdown discipline?

Maybe it is allowing filming to go on without any hindrance, allowing outdoor kartering for films, but shutting down outdoor dining at the exact same location for regular folks who do not have multi million dollar budgets and political connections so they can loose everything they ever worked for?

This is actually a pattern for Facebook. Something happens, they have a good point in their favor, then instead of explaining it they just completely ignore the best arguments in their favour and just grants the point. It is incredibly infuriating.

Fair enough, it is never a good defense, but in this case it is not meant as a defense as much as a reason against changing laws from what it currently is. There was no action to be defended until Australia changed their laws to something which makes search engines non feasible and to me that is a good reason why the law should not have been made.

A valid excuse for not infringing copyright? What is the action that needs to be excused here? And if the sites don't want to be indexed by the search engines, why do they go out of their way to be indexed by search engines?

What exactly is the problem that needs solving?

If it was copyright infringement why was a new law needed? If it was not (hint: it was not) then why should they pay? And why should they have to pay news companies and not every other site? If you want to re-invent copyright so that search engines become non-feasible, please just don't, because I like search engines, the world is better off for having search engines, maybe just don't use them yourself if you have such a big issue with them.

> But, the problem still exists.

No it really does not.

Can't agree more, this law by the Australian government was the most asinine and ill considered thing since the GDPR which got us bloody cookie popups all over. Governments are entirely useless with regulating the internet.

Any reason why they did not stay home? Wear masks? Keep social distance? Avoid social gatherings?

Ikea chair caused hip damage, I stood for some time which fucked my knees up, then I bought another chair for $ 1000 but damage was already done by IKEA chair, and it did not help much, compensation I had to make for hip caused back injury, then I bought another for $ 1000, still did not help.

No tax deductions, no subsidies, no free cash, nothing.

So I am now unable to work, I am out more than $2000, and I will likely lose my job and be deported now, and I will be in constant pain for hours on the flight back and will be bedridden for the rest of my life.

I would give everything I have to be able to sit at a computer and concentrate for more than 5 minutes again.

I would much rather have had COVID. COVID lasts some weeks, maybe months with long COVID, I have damage for the rest of my life.

Not a guarantee of what? Are we suggesting that we have a virus here that, unlike every previous virus, we can only reach herd immunity for with a vaccine?

In short, most likely, unless you are reckless with it.

EDIT: Actually they seem to have fixed it now. Nifty.

If it is not copyright infringement why would you need to pay someone?

Amazing how the level of evidence required for this is completely different and significantly higher from almost everything else that dominated the news since 2016.

Wait is this all of a sudden a prerequisite for something being believable?!?!?! What the hell did I live through since 2016?

I am.

> I get I'd also be at war with other tribes killing their men, but Neanderthals I assume are easy to kill tactically and emotionally and I wouldn't expect them to be good allies.

You scienced this one like a pro.

2. We can't actually test sexual reproduction of extinct "species"

3. Even if we go with the one definition of species which is "largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring", evidence of some reproduction does not speak to how often such reproduction led to fertile offspring. For example "No evidence of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has been found in modern humans"[1], and "Neanderthal males might not have had viable male offspring with Anatomically modern humans females"[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genetics#Interbree...

Cite?

Is this not for each reader to judge individually?

> There's no proof of any explanation of why Neanderthal and Human would have interbred.

Not sure of the relevance of this.

Just stop, use asciidoc.

If you are corrupt, please do the right thing and turn yourself in to the authorities.