The author assumes the Court doesn’t understand the consequences of what it’s doing, but I really don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption. It’s entirely possible they know exactly what they’re doing.

Imagine arguing for the victim’s safety except for when the criminal is rich enough to pay for their temporary release.

The thing is that the study with the mice was seriously flawed. There’s been more research since then, which is why we’re getting this announcement now (even though the announcement itself is little more than “oh hey there might be something to this? We definitely need more research before we can know for sure.”)

I feel like this probably explains some things…

Which was always the intent, more or less. It was just kind of a tradition amongst audio engineers to use it once in every film. It had nothing to do with the studios.

I never watched Ghoulies, but I’ll never forget walking through the rental store and the box was eye-level with tiny kid me. Scarred me pretty bad. After that I was terrified of flushing the toilet, so toilet lid always had to be down and as soon as I flushed I would run from the bathroom.

Took me probably twenty years to completely get over it.

We need additional regulation about profit margins and executive compensation, or something along those lines, to prevent cost increases from being passed on to the consumer when it could just as easily come out of the profit margin or executive compensation.

It’s a good joke, right?

The only alternative is to use the tools we have: let the free market work, but not at the expense of the employees. This means, yes, wage increase will be passed into the customer, who will reduce how much they use the service (decrease demand), which will either drive down supply to justify higher prices or drive down prices to increase demand again. Either option creates opportunities for competitors to enter the market which also drives down prices.

All that said, let me be clear: I prefer option A over option B, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

“Free speech absolutism (but not if you link to my competitor)” isn’t free speech absolutism. It’s just another hypocrisy to throw on the pile.

Play with swords.

I do historical reenactment in the SCA and the fencers use actual metal blades to fight. It’s HEMA but with fun clothes and a ton of other optional activities like brewing and making our own coins (those are my chosen activities, but a lot of people do costuming, calligraphy, music, apothecary… the list goes on).

It makes my inner child so happy 😊

Well, fascists gonna fasc, regardless of which country they’re in.

Let’s not downplay the value of that photo. Stuff like that is a critical competent component for building AI systems strong enough to visually identify people under a variety of conditions. It’s the keystone to a total surveillance state, which itself is the gateway to things like the social credit system used in China.

Edit: stupid typo

He was a grifter and a threat to society. I’m not going to say I’m happy he’s dead, but I’ll sure nod along when other people do.

(I mean, I’d have preferred he live and work to undo the damage he’s caused, but I’m not an idiot)

Well I know they forced some subreddits go back to SFW if it was obvious the NSFW was just to protest. Maybe that’s the case for the subreddit you’re looking at?

I think the critical difference is “Meta pushes for changes” vs “Meta pushes for changes with the support of thousands/millions of users”.

If Meta convinces Thread users that a certain change is good for them, it’s going to be that much harder for the people developing ActivityPub to push back on those changes. And even if the developers succeed, Meta can just use that to say “fine, we’ll fork off and make our own ActivityPub with data collection and advertisements” and if enough instances in the Fediverse are reliant one Threads for engagement they may just switch to the Meta version of ActivityPub, taking a chunk of our community with them.

And maybe that’s alright for some folks, but a lot of us don’t want any of that to happen, even potentially. I think it’s pretty unethical to deliver people into the maw of the beast like that, so to speak.

You’re 100% correct, but don’t think that’s enough for Meta. It’s inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it’s market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.

And it’s that acceleration that’s the real problem. If this sort of warming happened over twenty or thirty thousand years, the ecosystem would have a chance to adapt and maybe humanity along with it. A couple hundred years? Nah mate, ecological collapse is going to happen and it’ll probably take us with it.

You do see how it could have a chilling effect on engagement if the “someone” judging you negatively for your vote is, say, a repressive government, right? And what’s the point of a social network without engagement?

Makes a ton of sense. It only makes Google look bad when their users can’t actually view the results of their search. Imagine if the first page of a Google search was nothing but limited access stuff (paywalls, members only, etc) it would drive users to the competition really fast.

You had me with the first half ngl