It’s shorter than Super Cyber Sabotage

tl;dr:

Donald Trump’s campaign accidentally used an image of the country of Georgia in a digital ad intended for voters in the U.S. state of Georgia. The ad featured a scenic backdrop of vast mountain ranges, which online users quickly identified as the Caucasus Mountains from the European nation, rather than any landscape found in the U.S. The ad urged Georgia voters to check their voter registration status, with a message from Trump emphasizing how crucial their votes were in the upcoming election.

“ATTENTION GEORGIA: I’m humbly asking you to stop what you’re doing and check your voter registration status,” the ad stated. However, instead of highlighting the battleground state, the image depicted the wrong “Georgia,” causing a humorous mix-up.

The ad had been running on Facebook since September 10, with around $6,000 spent before it was removed on Monday after being featured in the Politically Georgia newsletter. The campaign did not provide a response regarding the mistake, but aides from Vice President Kamala Harris’ camp were quick to mock the error. Harris’ deputy spokesperson, Ammar Moussa, sarcastically commented on the blunder, calling it a “top-notch operation.”

There are 9 other images in the link.

That poll was taken in June, but I agree with the message.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-low/story?id=39870857

It’s the final stage of the pump n dump.

You are correct.

https://apnews.com/article/whale-breach-boat-capsize-new-hampshire-efe8cbfae49b93f6325c4331db8999ae

I M M E R S I O N

These are extremely rare events. It would be like wearing a helmet in case your windshield fell out. Having some in the cockpit for emergencies could help, but I don’t know if it would be possible to put them on while handling said emergency.

Thanks. Link updated to skip ahead.

Here you go

Direct link

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/five-men-convicted-operating-major-illegal-streaming-service

It looks like it’s corrected now. Copy editing is sadly dead.

Jail time for nonviolent activism is excessive, and will probably motivate, not deter, more people to do the same.

Yes, for a monthly subscription!

Thanks, updated.

Thank you. I’ll correct the title.

I’m Sorry Duke, I’m Afraid I Can’t Do That

That was the point.

I asked ChatGPT for a response to your comment

Your comment raises several interesting points regarding the use of voice likeness and the legal implications of hiring voice actors who sound similar to well-known celebrities. Let’s break down the key issues:

1. Use of a Similar Voice: The core of the debate revolves around whether using a voice that sounds like a well-known celebrity constitutes a legal issue. If the voice used is indeed not Scarlett Johansson’s but merely resembles it, this might not be inherently illegal. However, it could still lead to legal disputes over rights of publicity and potential misrepresentation.

2. Voice Acting and Vocal Qualities: It is true that many voice actors can mimic the vocal qualities of celebrities. Hiring a voice actor who naturally has a similar voice to a celebrity is a common practice. The legal line is crossed if the intent and execution imply endorsement or use of the celebrity’s identity without permission.

3. Rights of Publicity: Celebrities, including Scarlett Johansson, have rights of publicity, which protect against unauthorized commercial use of their name, likeness, and other identifiable aspects of their persona. If the resemblance is close enough that it creates confusion or implies endorsement, it could be grounds for a lawsuit.

4. Potential for a Lawsuit: Whether Scarlett Johansson would win a lawsuit depends on several factors, including the jurisdiction’s specific laws on rights of publicity, the exact nature of the voice usage, and whether it can be proven that the voice model intentionally mimics her voice in a way that exploits her identity.

5. Practical Examples: Your analogy with James Earl Jones highlights a key point. If a voice actor is hired for their natural resemblance to a well-known voice, it’s typically acceptable. However, explicitly marketing or promoting the voice in a way that suggests it is the celebrity without their consent could lead to legal challenges.

In summary, while it may not be outright illegal to use a voice that sounds like a celebrity, there are significant legal nuances and potential for litigation if the use implies unauthorized endorsement or exploits the celebrity’s identity. The balance lies in how the voice is marketed and whether it misleads the audience into believing it is the celebrity.