ZodiacSF1969 @ ZodiacSF1969 @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

249

Joined

2 yr. ago

Such a dumb question.

Building a nuclear power plant requires the collaboration of physicists, nuclear + electrical + civil engineers, etc...

Solar requires a certified electrician.

We know how to build nuclear safely, it just requires a lot more effort and oversight, therefore is not something you can build at home.

Manhattan?

I think messaging is more likely to see progress made on this front. I don't see regulations forcing Spotify to allow for their personalization mechanisms to be transferable and that doesn't really make sense why they should have to, while messaging I can see happen even if only due to popular demand.

Thank you for your riveting analysis. CNN will be calling soon to get you on I'm sure.

You are reading too much into their comment. It's OK to ask how you would implement it.

Wtf does this article have to do with conservatives? Liberals and swing voters own guns too, you know.

He failed to act on the AIDS epidemic until it was too late.

If I install solar panels and the inverters incorrectly I could potentially harm or kill myself and others. Therefore solar isn't safe.

Uh... What?

Yes, you'd just need to show that you actively moderate/apply content policies.

This will vary by jurusduction, but most of the West has laws similar to this I believe.

There is a middle ground. The FDA shouldn't have the power to ban a product from the market. They should be able to publish their recommendations, however, and people who trust them can choose to follow those recommendations. Others should be free to publish their own recommendations, and some people will choose to follow those instead.

That's putting too much responsibility on the average person, who doesn't have the time to become educated enough in biology and pharmacology to understand what every potentially harmful product may do to them. What if they never even hear the FDA recommendation?

Also, though you'd like to think this would only harm the individual in question who purchases a harmful product, there are many ways innocent third parties could be harmed through this. Teratogens are just one example.

This kind of laissez-faire attitude just doesn't work in the real world. There's a reason we ban overtly harmful substances.

As a CSA survivor, who had images taken of me while I was abused... Fuck you.

People wanting to possess it is exactly what encourages people to produce the material. If you let people possess it with no consequences you will let the demand shoot up and basic economics should tell you what happens next with the supply part.

That is disgusting. Seriously. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

So you made the same point they did and added nothing.

I never thought I'd see a thread on Lemmy arguing that a group of young women should be forced to live with someone that they clearly don't want to.

Good for you for arguing with them, I don't have the energy this morning.

I don't know about launching in new countries, but a lot of the new subscribers were added in countries where Netflix is cheaper so while they did add a lot of subscribers the revenue increase wasn't large.

No one should be earning (up to) half a million a year?

Yes, but you might be more likely to be targeted by thieves who don't know the difference.

Car thefts are up here anyway, but a lot of it is break and enters where they just get into your house to grab the keys.

There is a diagnostic USB port in the steering column of the car, they are plugging a cable into that then the car just starts without the key.

Immobilizers are required here in Australia so it's not that, I think it just inspired a bunch of kids to go steal cars in other ways.

Lemmy instances are likely already protected in many countries legally so long as they act in good faith, ie actively moderate.

I think they have oversimplified the situation to the point that it is wrong.

1. Arguably, Lemmy instance providers (depending on where they live) are protected in the same way Facebook or other content hosts are. So long as you are acting in good faith you are protected against any illegal content your users upload. This does mean you need to remove illegal content as you become aware of it, you can't just ignore what your users are doing.
2. There have been cases where although a user technically 'possessed' CSAM, it was shown that they did so unknowingly via thumbnails or it being cached. The police do investigate where it came from. It's not as simple as just sending it to someone and you can have them convicted.