“Oops! We aCciDeNtLy cut out the part that might cause insurrection supporters to not watch our award show! Aww shucks our mistake increased our ratings.”
It's not a televised. It's an obscure awards show that almost nobody saw.
If they didn’t want to hear what HE had to say then why give him an award and a mic?
To hear him talk about the film?
It is very common for actors to use their speeches as a chance to speak about issues important to them. From Joaquin Phoenix all the way back to Marlon Brando.
Indeed it is, and the result is lots of eye-rolling and complaints. De Niro has many opportunities to express himself on a variety of issues. That doesn't mean every sentence he could possibly say really belongs there whenever he's given a microphone.
I don't think we can quite say that. Speeches usually have a time limit. It would be perfectly normal to write more than you can actually say and then start cutting back or rewording parts to make it shorter. That's not "censorship." If you're cutting down an acceptance speech, the more off-topic stuff is naturally going to be looked at critically. I'd expect there to be multiple drafts with different portions cut out so it's not so much as a "full" verses "cut" speech but which version of cuts was the final version.
I think there's a time and place. Trump is a criminal who should be in prison, but his casual racism against Native Americans is still quite tangential to the Osage murders. I think most filmmakers who made a movie about bad things in the past do indeed want to draw contemporary comparisons (because we should try to avoid repeating past mistakes), but that doesn't mean every comparison is appropriate in every circumstance. Nobody wants rambling acceptance speeches, perhaps even more so at obscure awards shows where there isn't even a large audience who might need to hear the message. The speech as given just wasn't very good. It veers progressively off-topic.
VPN services are illegal in China. Apple doesn't "gladly" remove the apps but they can't just not comply with the law. But Apple has helpfully built VPN support directly into the operating system. Once you get the configuration stuff from your provider, you can set it up in the Settings app. Apple did the bare minimum of legal compliance by removing the apps, but also made it so you don't need the apps in the first place.
Variety reports that De Niro’s accusations regarding censorship have been denied by “a source close to the film,” who instead claims the incident was a miscommunication. The insider alleges that multiple versions of the speech had been created, and that both Apple and the filmmakers were unaware that De Niro had not approved the final draft. We have reached out to Apple and the Gotham Film & Media Institute to clarify the situation.
I can't rule out a dumb employee trying to make a unilateral change to a speech almost nobody would have known about otherwise, but a miscommunication over multiple drafts certainly strikes me as highly plausible, and I can also understand why the filmmakers would have been encouraging a draft that was more focused on the film than tangential contemporary political issues.
Australia's government said on Monday it would bring Apple Pay, Google Pay and other digital payment services under the same regulatory umbrella as credit cards and other payments as part of legislation set to be introduced to parliament this week.
This is complete nonsense. Does the government even know what it’s saying? Apple Pay just refers to a credit or debit card loaded onto your device. It’s already fully covered by all regulations that apply to the cards themselves.
I think it's pretty solidly in the Tex-Mex category, which is so much more popular in America than actual Mexican food that "Mexican" is better considered a casual alternative to saying Tex-Mex. If you actually mean authentic Mexican, you should probably specify that, or even better, name the specific region. It's normal to see a restaurant advertised as Oaxacan or Yucatan, for example.
This seems backwards from what a manufacturer would want to do. The concern with variances isn’t really having too much but having too little in the bottle. If you aimed to put exactly 600 in the bottle, you will sometimes end up below 600. It would make more sense to label it 600, aim for 618, and be confident that you’ll always fill it to at least the advertised 600.
Going further back, you can try property ownership records
Important caveat that many (most?) businesses lease their space so there's a good chance the legal owner is just something like "123 Main Street Partners, LP" (often literally just the actual street address as the substantive part of the name), which won't tell you anything about what business was there. The lessee's name, however, is likely to be on some permits, so that would be another approach if the registered owner ends up a dead end.
Hmm, with some lawsuits going years and years, seems like postponing decisions could save a lot because of the time value of money.
The specifics vary depending on exactly what is owed to whom and why, but in many of these cases the amount owed is subject to interest if, ultimately, it must be paid, or the money has actually already been provided but is held in escrow.
In the Meta case from earlier this year, the Irish regulator that imposed the fines did not think it warranted fines at all but they were overruled by a European organization. When the national regulator who investigated the offenses disagrees with the punishment, I think we can at the very least consider it a legitimate subject of dispute.
The article also says that Apple has fought for years against a 1.1 billion Euro fine in France. What the article leaves out is that Apple has been successful. Courts have already agreed with Apple and eliminated roughly 2/3 of that fine. Again, clearly there is a legitimate legal dispute over a fine if the legal system determines the regulators were, indeed, wrong.
It’s not like these companies are just refusing to pay their fines, as this article falsely implies. There are ongoing legal disputes. Most of Meta’s “unpaid” fines, for example, are from just six months ago and there are legitimate disagreements on them that are subject to appeal.
Apple has several thousand employees in Ireland. Ireland wanted to lure foreign investment by offering lower taxes and it worked. Ireland was happy. Apple was happy. Decades later, the EU decided it wasn’t happy.
You do realize that people also have the right of free association? The government needs to meet a very high standard before it can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Members of the public may refuse to do business with a person, or socially ostracize them, based on whatever information they have available.
That means the government shouldn't just start throwing everyone in jail at the first accusation. That doesn't mean the public can't or shouldn't act on the information.
I have not read her accusations but I don't think your criticism is really valid.
You can't publicly accuse someone if neither of you is a public figure. It just doesn't work that way. You need a platform that comes after at least one of the parties is famous.
Also, testimony from the victim is evidence. In the case of old sexual assault cases, it's quite often the only evidence. But if all you have is fuzzy memories from decades ago, you know that's not going to get you anywhere in court so why would you even attempt a legal claim?
The fact that an ostensible child sexual assault victim does not have additional evidence, or does not file a police report or civil suit, shouldn't be used to discount their claims.
It's not a televised. It's an obscure awards show that almost nobody saw.