No 3rd either, so the king can even do that in time of peace!

And yet all the cool kids love Python and YAML these days, both of which break in fun and interesting ways if you get the indenting wrong.

But that's by design, and is very clearly spelled out. And if you can't deal with Python's formatting rules, maybe you should go back to BASIC. The rest of us are making great stuff with it.

Could we finally have stumbled on something that both political sides of this country can agree on?

Fair point on orders vs species, my sloppy use of language.

So yes, some coral species are going to fail; that's the nature of specialization.
As long as the ecosystem is stable, specialization is an evolutionary advantage meaning specialists can outcompete generalists. Once things get shaken up, specialists die off, generalists survive until the next stable span as specialists start to evolve into the new niches.

That's how it's worked for a *billion* years. Evolution requires death.

Assuming humans are somehow responsible to fix climate into the Holocene optimal forever with sea levels NEVER AGAIN CHANGING and ecosystems NEVER AGAIN CHANGING is absurdist fantasy.

Acidification: So you're saying that the Archaean ocean ph of 6.5-7.0 - you know, when life more or less evolved - is now awful?
https://www.science.org/doi/10...

Dead Zones: https://www.sciencealert.com/d...
"...In a new study, researchers discovered that dead zones have actually been a recurring feature of the Pacific Ocean for longer than anybody ever realized â" at least around 1.2 million years, in fact.

Analyzing a core of ancient sediment drilled from the Bering Sea seabed in the North Pacific, scientists identified 27 separate instances of dead zones â" officially termed oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) â" in the last 1.2 million years, suggesting repeat bouts of hypoxia were a relatively regular feature of the Pacific throughout the Pleistocene...."

Panic more, snowflake.

Ah, the expected cadre of ecomarxists downvoting to hell. Love open debate with you guys.

Also, we are currently in the most temperate time of the year. Wait until you can exceed the demand during winter or summer before running your victory lap... or are rolling blackouts no longer a thing in California?

One of the oldest, most durable archaeolifeforms on this planet is threatened by it getting warmer by a couple of degrees?

More likely, some opportunist corals which had highly specialized over the last 20k years or so are unable to adapt to an ever changing climate and are struggling. That's how life works.
What will happen is they will be replaced by more heat tolerant variants while other stretches of ocean too chilly for corals generally will now become habitable.

Corals as a species have survived numerous extinction events. And it's not "speed of the change" as some events - like the Chicxulub impact - had a vastly larger effect than a few degrees and it happened in a geological instant, not centuries. And corals likely struggled but survived just fine.

...maybe we actually start treating China as an actual enemy?

I mean, HP's predatory ink bullshit is long since proved, nobody doing the faintest amount of research wouldn't find it.

This isn't exonerating HPs nonsense, I'd love to see them get their comeuppance.

But seriously: STOP BUYING HP SHIT. Not just printers, ALL OF IT.
Until *consumers* punish them for their choices, why should they change? Do you think a huge corporation feels guilt?

If Cox is liable for user's copyright infringement then Tesla is liable for drivers speeding.

Not if there's a federal law that explicitly declares that middlemen are liable if they don't comply with the DMCA process, while there isn't a federal law saying car manufacturers are liable for speeding.

You might be looking at the underlying principles and making common sense value judgements, instead of reading what the law says.

This is ultimately why politics exists: to influence what the law is, in an attempt to make it more like your common sense value judgements. And it's really hard because these are issues that your congressional candidates probably aren't talking about at all, because they're talking about someone else's "important" [eyeroll] issues instead. We needed to stop DMCA in 1997/1998 and we failed.

The jury seemed to decide that accusations qualify as infringement

However regrettable, it's easy to understand how that can happen.

The jury could have just been told testimony that "we saw xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx was seeding our movie" (with screenshots of MPAA's torrent client showing a seeder at that address and the packets they got from that address correctly matching the torrent's checksum). Meanwhile, Cox wouldn't have any evidence refuting it (even though the assertion isn't proven; the "screenshots" could have been made in GIMP for all we know). And then the jury might have ruled based on "preponderance" of evidence.

Kind of like 3 cops saying "the perp resisted arrest" and the perp saying "no I didn't" and a criminal jury (where the bar is much higher) still deciding that the perp resisted arrest. Sigh. You know that happens.

Had Cox ratted their customer out (or gotten a DMCA counternotice from them), then the customer could have been sued instead, and raised doubts by saying "I have an open wifi" or something like that. But Cox didn't, and they certainly aren't going to say "we have an open wifi" since they're in the network business so of course they don't offer free networking to strangers. It sounds like a difficult situation for Cox.

The story is light on details so I ass/u/me some things. The copyright infringement was likely due to torrents, i.e. from the internet's point of view, addresses owned by Cox were publishing/hosting content (under the hood: really Cox's customers seeding torrents).

So if I were an MPAA/RIAA -member company, I'd send Cox a DMCA notice ("Cox, stop sharing my copyrighted work") which really means "Cut that customer off or otherwise make them stop, or else get a DMCA counternotice from them, so I can go after them instead of you." And if that's what happened, then it sounds like Cox said no (didn't make it stop and also didn't pass the buck to their customers. So they sued Cox instead of Cox's customers.

But that's based on assumptions and speculation, hence my question. But yes, I know what a DMCA notice is and I think that mechanism was likely in involved at some point in the story.

âoeAll Boys Arenâ(TM)t Blueâ is a young-adult nonfiction book that details the life of George Johnson growing up as a queer Black man. This is a book with explicit passages about fisting, butt plugs, anal, the spit-or-swallow decision and rape as well as 10yr olds performing sodomy, underage incest, strap-on dildo, and blow jobs.

"Gender Queer" has illustrations of fellating a dildo, as well as the MC getting aroused by illustrations of an adult man touching the penis of a young boy.

"Beyond Magenta" has reference to a six year old boy blowing older boys.

"Flamer" has a bunch of tweens talking about the last person to jizz in a bottle has to drink it all,

"This Book is Gay" gives step by step instructions on how to give a handjob.

Is this OK for kids? Those are graphic sex? This book is gay is, afaik LITERALLY MEANT AS A GRAPHIC GUIDE TO GAY SEX, no?

If parents are forcibly removed from School Board meetings on grounds of indecency, for reading text from books their kids brought home from the school library, that's pretty wrong.

If you say that's ok, you're a kook and/or a pedo.

Would I rather live in a regressive petro state with a medieval patriarchy enforced by law where women are little more than chattel slavery and legally regarded as less than a toddler boy? No. I like women as people equal to me in every respect, thanks. That said, I'm also not really fond of 'corrective' sexism where women are a 'favored victim class' long past the point of equality; it's been pretty solid for years that more girls go to college than boys - have the preferential admissions ceased? No? Why?

That said, I think it's delusional to not recognize that men and women approach things differently. Not better or worse, generally, just differently. In 2024, we've all been deeply programmed to never question some things, so it's anathemic if not outright heretical to point out that women:
- tend to care about the rights and feelings of others as well as their own
- tend to be accomodative
- tend to seek group consensus and approval
- tend to be risk avoiding and stability seeking, ....and the inculcation of these approaches as priorities are not necessarily completely positive for larger issues in our democracy nor (especially) in geopolitics.

It's 2024, I expect that if you've read this far (and depending on your age) you'll be reacting in shock and no small anger to these generalizations but they ARE largely proved.
https://www.andrews.edu/~tidwe...
As a VERY broad assertion, I'd state that those feminine qualities undercut democracy by trading things I value like liberty and choice, for things are are less important like comfort and stability.

Hell, I saw a recent study that testosterone actually leads to positive feelings when rejecting authority.

I think women are generally more easily emotionally manipulated. "Look at all the sad little families just trying to cross the border. Look at all the poor children in Gaza."
(Men were too, for sure, but the effeminization of the electorate has led to the deprecation of patriotism generally, so ironically this has left men LESS easily manipulated by that historically very-strong lever on them. Skinny-jeans wearing soyboys aren't going to take to the streets if someone waves a US flag. Well, maybe to protest against it, lol.)

In the same generalization, men can also be TOO uncaring, TOO disruptive, TOO independent of necessary consensus, of course. I just think we've swung way past any sort of rational center today.