Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)VA
Posts
14
Comments
168
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • More like he knows Lucian Grieves of the Satanic Temple has already prefilled a letter with his lawyer friend to have St. Lucifer's Preparatory Academy financed by Oklahoma state funds. Just waiting for the Catholic funding to be upheld and the letter gets mailed. Along with affidavit from a local Oklahoma Satanist who is absolutely enthusiastic about having their child schooled at St. Lucifers.

    Like protestant vs Catholic is least of their problems. They have to finance a Wiccan Coven school, Muslim masrada, scientologist school, a norse Viking academy and so on.

    Since as the rule goes: can't start making rulings on which religions are in and which are out.

  • Slashed tire doesn't justify threatening with deadly force. Since that is what it was. How are the protesters to know its a replica airsoft gun from distance and not a real firearm. Person was injured since this person caused a fearing their lives scattering and rampage of people.

    Hence why he is in charge for menacing charge. Since that is what it is and why it is a crime. Since society knows just threatening with deadly force causes panic and leads to injuries and damage.

    The right response to "someone slashed my tire" us to call the cops and should one catch the perpetrator red handed, take out the obiguitous camera phone and take evidence footage of the likely by now running away perpetrator and turn that evidence over to police. That call insurance company.

  • What are you gonna do, vote for the other party that definitely wants you dead or at the very least abused and subjugated?

    You seem to forget there is a third option, the most likely option in such case. Just not turning up to vote at all.

  • But the thing is Democrats could change their strategy. Since frankly (I don't know why, seems stupid given how small and hard to catch segment it is) Democrat strategy is to chase the middle of "moderate Republicans and fence sitters".

    When I would hazard a guess, if they instead adopted are strategy of exactly focusing on non-voters with democrat leaning would bring them lot of votes.

    In general blaming the voter is a bad idea. It is way easier for party to qdapt to voter sentiments with their strategy, than it is for a party to change the emotional and mental state of millions of voters. In this case it is really the customer aka the voter is always right. If one can't convince voter to vote, it is the candidates fault. To play otherwise is to say millions of people ought to adapt to single or couple persons whims. It shouldn't be that way and in general it isn't that way.

    Since in practice, if person is apathetic they won't vote. No amount of "but that is stupid of you" will fix it. Apathy is emotional matter, not matter of logic. As much as some consultant might try to assume humans are rational, no they aren't. Humans are inherently emotional beings and party wanting to succeed must adapt to that.

    Only way out of apathy isn't fear, it just makes apathy deeper. The way out is hope, promise of prosperity and then delivering on that promise. Since to not do so is to cause betrayed expectations and doubly deep apathy.

  • Well depending on how they count was there a flip or are the ratios different since certain amount of people have moved to the "not likely voter" category. So instead of flip, there is apathy among democratic voters.

    Since they say among black voters, not among black population. Those are two different things and it matters which is it. All voting eligible persons, regardless of likelihood to vote, or just likely voters.

    Since voter/not voter is not a fixed grouping, there is constant movement over that line.

  • People always seem to forgot even two party system is not a two bucket zero sum game. There is always that third pseudo party around, the sleeping peoples party. Losing voters to sleeping peoples party is exactly as good way to lose the election as is losing voters directly to the main rival party.

    One can also win an election, not by stealing voters from the rival, but from the sleeping peoples party.

  • Since I is decentralized, it is upto the intances. There is no central authority to eject an instance. Rather other instances individually block the instances they find objectionable to their own criterion.

    At basic its that. Inpractice moderation federations and coalitions etc. have formed among instances of "we maintain joint blocking list and any of us can suggest new additions to it".

    Due to this one can get ejected from rather sizeable swath, if one one the moderation federations puts one on block list and that is pretty much as far as an "you have 24 hours or we boot you". You get booted from all the instances part of that federation/coalition.

    Plus stuff like just sources/authors trusted by various instances. "If this guy puts an instance on their published black list, we block. So far that guy has done good job with his list". Ofcourse instance can at any point decide to not trust that list author anymore.

    So there is no one "how mastodon does it". Infact this is the one area where "on what instance are you" matters. Since how your home instance decides to do moderation and blocking, that is how your blocking happens. Plus ones personal additions on top.

    Mastodon has a moderation action feature, where one can see listing of what instances and user have been blocked or other moderation action taken. There is explanation field there also for moderator to say "why" but obviously that is upto instance on what their policy is on how exacting their moderation documentation policy is.

  • Not only they warned him. Reports are Tesla design department out of their own initiative and knowing how bad the proposed cyber truck was developed and alternate "sane" Tesla electric pickup truck proposal. When they tried to suggest it to Elon he reportedly didn't want to here none about it and got mad.

    He told the design boss just to make the existing design work. As we can see that didn't end up going well.

  • But verbal warning is different thing as to a legal ruling and actual punishment action, actual real consequences and not just a strongly worded letter. Yeah 5k is meaningless for him, but it demonstrates punishment clauses can be used. Thinking is "this should make him/his lawyers read rest of the punishment scale and that should deter him".

    If it doesn't, stronger punishments will be applied.

  • He is successful enough, old enough and made enough money, that he can just retire. Threatening him is an empty threat. He is 60 and probably given his long career earned more than he can spend in rest of his life, unless he goes super yacht and private jet crazy.

    The whole show was a come back from retirement essentially. A voluntary indulgence on his part. Surely lucrative indulgence, but indulgence still. Apple needed him, he didn't need Apple.

    Most of the crew probably will leave for other project with a letter of recommendation from John in their pocket.

  • I would also add that isn't empty talk like "Well he said it once, non biggie". That statement by POTUS itself drove the national policy other countries. When POTUS says "other nations you are with us or are our enemies", that matters.

    That is a signal the reverberates around with "do we dare to anger USA on this one". The Afghan war partisipants list is long and contains some not so obvious participants often doing rather small token participations. Which I think is exactly "Well we have to show we are with USA".

    For example here in Finland in the after action report of Finnish participation in Afghanistan tells the reason wasn't building peace, it wasn't even combat experience. It was "coalition and alliance building" aka showing USA "we are with them".

    In the after action study one of the interviewed decision makers literally directly quoted:

    Yhdysvallat sanoi 9/11 jälkeen: olette joko meidän kanssa tai meitä vastaan.”

    United States said after 9/11: You are either with us or against us.

    Right above explaining how it was 20 year long very unpopular operation caused losses and achieved nothing in Afghanistan, but hey the Finnish NATO application will go through with flying colors.

    The whole time the media blitz was about "Helping and building peace in Afghanistan". When in reality we went in because USA publicly extorted pretty all of west to show colors.

    This isn't only in Finland in other European after action reports have shown similar "We went in, because Bush publicly demanded show of loyalty".

  • Well many adblockers can be clever enough to load the asset, but then just drop it. As in yeah the ad image got downloaded to browser, but then the page content got edited to drop the display of the add or turn it to not shown asset in css.

    This is age old battle. Site owners go you must do X or no media. However then ad blocker just goes "sure we do that, but then we just ghost the ad to the user".

    Some script needs to be loaded, that would display the ad? All the parts of the script get executed and.... then CSS intervention just ghosts the ad that should be playing and so on.

    Since the browser and extension are in ultimate control. As said the actual add video might be technically "playing" in the background going through motions, but it's a no show, no audio player.... ergo in practice the ad was blocked, while technically completely executed.

    Hence why they want to scan for the software, since only way they can be sure ad will be shown is by verifying a known adhering to showing the ad software stack.

    Well EU says that is not allowed, because privacy. Ergo the adblocker prevention is playing a losing battle. Whatever they do on the "make sure ad is shown" side, adblocker maker will just implement counter move.

  • Since he was an idiot and gave a no reservations or conditions bid for the company. At way overpriced at that. The existing biard and owners must have been fainting from shock and glee.

    No one sane ever gives no reservations and conditions bid. That is insanely stupid thing to do.

    Twitter didn't make Elon buy Twitter. Elon did that to himself. Under normal bid, absolutely he could back out by arguing one of the conditions his lawyers would have put in.

    Either his lawyers were highly incompetent, he didn't use them or he ignored their advice that it would be highly unusual and monumentally stupid to issue such bid while waiving ones right to have terms and conditions included. Well negotiate in terms and conditions. Since obviously otherside might refuse to accept the buying contract, if they don't like the terms and conditions.

    In this case all the judge did was looked at the bid contract and went "Mister Musk, you signed bid to buy with no terms and conditions. So you have to honor the bid."

  • Don't threaten us with good time, Elon.

    Also no way he is going through. He is way too much in financial hole to give up European market. Like Google or Meta, sure they have the financial standing to maybe pull such move and survive.

    Xitter? They need every visitor and account they can have globally to even think about staying viable.

    Empty bluster and pointless empty bluster, since EU would just go "fine. Our continental economy or prosperity doesn't depend on your social media company. Social media isn't a critical industry, so we are just fine with you leaving. Plus there is 10 others like you anyway".

    You can't threaten people with something that doesn't damage them and heck might be seen as benefit.

  • Doesn't matter that parties aren't mentioned. Political parties are inevitable predictable outcome of the ruleset.

    Also actually one of the biggest fixes USA could have is getting rid of single winner elections districts. Well President has to be single winner (though again why the heck electors should be single winner or even better why have electors in first place). However there is no reason to have single winner legislative body elections, since there is large number of members anyway. Only reason it is that way is, because Congress decided to make law about it.

    Since one key truth is: there is only so much one can do with the ruleset to make things fairer while having just single winner. All the other votes get wasted by default, except the winner. The only amount of power one can win is 100% or 0%.

    To have better proportionality one has to use multiple winners (or mixed member proportional, which is still multiple winners just indirectly via the party quotients). Since it allows dividing political power in more granular amounts than 0% and 100%. Like say 33%, 25% or 20%.

    After that one can start talking, we'll how should we allocate the winner of each for example 25% share of power in the district.

    This would also increase political activity, since previously apathetic voters would know "my candidate doesn't have to carry the whole district, we are just aiming to get 1 of the 5 seats. That is much more achievable. Yeah the big two probably grab say 2 each, but hey with good luck there is realistic change we get that 1/5".

    Where as there was snowballs chance smaller player could take a single winner district as whole.

  • it’s the party that reflexively attacks him for anything that goes wrong.

    No it isn't, atleast not the root problem. Root problem is the core rules etc of USA democracy and governing, which allows such dysfunctional situation to arise in the first place. The two party system, the bicameral setup leading to endless feuds and inability to pass legislation, the weird rules accepted in existence by internal procedural rules like the filibuster.

    For that both parties are guilty, since I have heard neither of them go "we have a constitutional ruleset problem, we should update the constitution. The rules might have been good for 1700s and much smaller USA. This is 2000s and way bigger and different USA".

    one doesn't get to claim "I'm surprised the the Leopard ate my face", if one has been feeding and raising a leopard cub for decades and hasn't decided "maybe we should send the Leopard to a zoo, maybe we should make a rule private home is not right place for Leopard to live in".

    Neither party wants to change the system, since it keeps them as number 1 or number 2. You don't get to claim "we have nothing to do with the systemic dysfunctions", if one keeps propping up a dysfunctional system. Doesn't matter who specifically manifests the symptoms. Systemic dysfunctions is systemic.

  • Left hand not knowing what right does? Maybe even hands and head disagreeing. Military level (or diplomatic negotiating level, whom ever the actual people working are) people agreeing to cease fire (out of pragmatism) and then political leadership level denying anything was agreed, since that would look like being soft on enemy?

  • It will at minimum be a fight. It won't just sail through. Also whole governments being against means one of them might challenge the law in to European Court of Justice. Since as nation-states also often have, EU itself has charter of rights part in the fundamental EU treaties. It also has normal limit and share of powers. EU Council and Parliament aren't all powerfull. ECJ can rule a directive or regulation to be against the core treaties like Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    Said charter does include in it right to privacy (which explicitly mentions right to privacy in ones communications) and protection of personal data. Obviously none of these are absolute, but it means such wide tampering as making encryption illegal might very well be deemed to wide a breach of right to private communications.

    Oh and those who might worry they wouldn't dare at ECJ.... ECJ has twice struck down the data protection agreement negotiated by EU with USA over "USA privacy laws are simply incompatible, no good enough assurances can be given by USA as long as USA has as powerful spying power laws as it has". Each time against great consternation and frankly humiliating black eye to the Commission at the time.

    ECJ doesn't mess around and doesn't really care their ruling being mighty politically inconvenient and/or expensive to EU or it's memberstates. They are also known for their stance that privacy is a corner stone civil right (as stated in the charter and human rights conventions also, their legal basis) and take it very seriously as key part of democracy and protection of democracy. Without free and private communications and expression there can be no free political discussion, without free political discussion there can be no democracy.

  • As I remember at the moment partly Von Der Leyen, the current Commission president. She is a German Christian democrat and apparently bit with capital C. Meaning she has bit of a moral panic streak on her of the "won't you think of the children" variety. As I understand this current proposal is very much driven by her.

    However her driving it doesn't mean it sail through to pass as legislation. Some whole memberstate governments are against the encryption busting idea.

  • Also I would add, not like this is unanimously supported in EU among memberstates. So this isn't a done deal, this is a legislative proposal. Ofcourse everyone should activate and campaign on this, but its not like this is "Privacy activists vs all of EU and all the member state governments" situation. Some official government positions on this one are "this should not pass like it is, breaking the encryption is bad idea".

    Wouldn't be first time EU commission proposal falls. Plus as you said ECJ would most likely rule it as being against the Charter of Rights of European Union as too wide breach of right to privacy.