derrickdirge

On mobile safari it completely fills the back button history, making it impossible to actually go back. Pretty egregious UX.

It's still helpful if your representatives can say 'I've received n calls from outraged constituents!' There's little reason you couldn't raise money and make a phone call.

I feel like in this case you should be able to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you really believe that they were advocating for violent protests in a list of legitimate, peaceful political activities?

You make it sound as though no one has a choice in their job.

Like jackbooted thugs from Fox show up on your doorstep and say "we heard you write comedy; you're coming with us."

There's no shortage of talented creative people, and contracts usually don't last forever.

Yes, but it's a fictional universe, so you're free to disregard any elements of it that fall outside of your favorite entries into the canon.

If you think that some new works expand the universe in a stupid direction, there's no reason you can't pretend they don't exist and still derive the same meaning from your favorite works.

Disney does this as a matter of policy.

I don't know that making a new season of a tv show is anything like building on top of the Great Pyramids of Giza. It's like building another pyramid.

I certainly don't think that the Luxor hotel and casino in Las Vegas diminishes the legacy of the Great Pyramids in any way. In fact, I think it's really interesting that they were able to use an ancient form to achieve something architecturally unique from a modern standpoint. It allowed them to create an uncommonly large open lobby area, which is really cool to see, and wouldn't have happened if someone had said 'no pyramids, pyramids have been done.'

A remake/reboot is certainly nothing like replacing the Mona Lisa. It's more like a Banksy type person painting their own take on the Mona Lisa on a concrete wall or something.

Do you think that no artist after da Vinci should ever reference the Mona Lisa in any way? Because derivative works were being made by prominent artists before da Vinci even considered his finished. In fact, the famous Mona Lisa arguably wasn't even the only version of the Mona Lisa that da Vinci himself contributed to.

'Meaning' is extremely personal and dependent entirely on the context within which a work is received. No work will ever hold the exact same meaning for two individuals. Furthermore, a work's meaning to a particular individual is likely to evolve continuously throughout their life.

To discourage derivative works is like saying that you don't want to have to consider that alternate meanings are even possible.

Isn't it interesting how only the elderly participate actively in politics in the US, and somehow the US political landscape is completely controlled by the elderly?

What a weird coincidence. Someone should tell them that political activism is pointless.

If the visuals don't contribute to the storytelling, then why watch movies at all?

Why not just listen to radio plays?

I would think the greatest value in that scenario would be in sharing in a new experience with friends.

But I don't know your friends.

>This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with.

Couldn't agree more.

It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten.

If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman.

And to categorize 3D movies as simply a fad totally disregards works for which 3D was an integral part of the creative vision, e.g. Avatar, Gravity, Love.

There's simply no good reason to discourage anyone from contributing anything creative to the culture, even if you question their motives.

How is the 3D fad keeping you from seeing 2D movies at the theater?

The same way a slender minority forced just about the worst possible President on the American people.

Hopefully this time everyone will remember how difficult bad things are.

> the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality.

The level of naïveté displayed in this comment is shocking.

> global destiny

Does this mean what it sounds like it means?

I've spent years not being able to find a functional organization strategy due to this very trap.

I'd be interested to know how a starving individual being kept in solitary confinement in a cold cell in standing water, regularly subjected to treatment intended to apply physical and psychological pressure, could be framed as anything other than torture.

I would also argue that if the government focused more on not torturing people and instead treating them with basic human dignity, it wouldn't have to deal with quite so many hunger strikes.

"While in custody, you will be subjected to whatever torture is necessary to protect you from yourself."

Why do any rule variants have to be a part of the lichess platform?

It doesn't seem like it was that long ago that Apple was marketing Safari as the least power-hungry browser.

Exactly.

With obscenity laws and laws outlawing certain drawings and such, porn is just the low hanging fruit.

But where is there to go?

The upside for the mentor is that their methods are carried through to the next generation of developers.

Maybe the wisdom should be "the compiler is saner than you."

"Oh, did we say 'your data'? Because we meant 'our asses.'"

Do you think the low quality of the content has anything to do with the fact that advertisers pay for ratings? Conventional wisdom dictates that the best way to boost ratings is to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

But if the public doesn't like how the government is running a public institution, they can elect different public officials.

To have anything resembling a similar amount of say about how a privately funded media company operates, I have to boycott all of its advertisers, which likely entails long-term lifestyle changes.

By that reasoning they are currently much less likely to bite the hands of all of their corporate advertisers.

Is a broadcasting company that's accountable to private corporations really preferable to one that's accountable to the public?

Well, the BBC does receive three times the public funding, so it's really not a fair comparison.

You're already paying $36/year and dealing with ads.

Going ad-free and getting sixteen extra minutes per hour of additional television content isn't worth an extra $9 every year?