All programming should be in English â" and I say this as a non-native English speaker. There is NOTHING to be gained from branching every function into 100+ differently called constructs. It also fragments the ecosystem.
That should have been the headline.
"... will be required to pay $9.4 million in penalties"
See, for 29000 endorsements, this is $324 per endorsement. This is a symbolic fine which will just be written off.
I think exposing each influencer and making them apologize for lying would be a better deterrent. It's one thing to say nice things about a product for money. It's another thing to claim you love a product that you've never even seen
This argument is so tiresome.
No corporation is required to create a platform where people can post whatever they want, whenever they want.
What is really tiresome is the assumption that this argument is about the inability to distinguish between Free Speech as guaranteed in the US constitution and the issue of actual Free Speech on the Internet in a world enthusiastically hurtling towards autocracy.
If you don't like those terms then don't join the site.
This is exactly it. Why must it be a site? The presumption that speech must exist one a platform someone owns rather than be transmitted through a distributed system of nodes which agree to speak the same protocol is the problem.
The government cannot infringe your right to free speech - But you do not have a right to "free speech" on private platforms.
First of all, the US government supposedly, currently cannot infringe on my right to free speech. I am not trying to repeat the same tiresome argument about what does and does not constitute free speech in just one country. I'm talking abut the need for an actual uncensorable platform to exist globally. As shocking as it may seem, no everyone lives in the US, and there is intrinsic value in having a global platform that is difficult for any specific entity censor or repress.
If you want to build a truly anonymous free-speech platform go ahead - But like Parler, Truth Social and all the rest you will find it largely empty. Why? Because average people don't enjoy hanging out on sites filled with hateful racist sexist ranting.
They much prefer sites with moderation policies that keep the toxic scum out.
The idiotic ramblings of Kanye and his ilk are immaterial. Every online discussion system will have its share of toxic morons. I'm arguing for the existence of a Usenet-like system with a difficult-to-abuse moderation model (i.e., mostly persistent identities, with the ability of individual users to block specific users or keywords, etc ) where each user gets a single moderation vote. Something like the bastard-child of Reddit and Usenet, minus the corporate overlords and IP address records which can be given to repressive governments. If the wrong comment can send you to jail in your local environment, whether the site censors it or not is immaterial -- but whether your identity is secret is not.
I'm sure I'm not the only one to think of such a system. I'd be interested to know if anyone has proposed or created one.
I was actually thinking something like Usenet -- but with some sort of anonymous yet persistent identity management. Something to incentivize users to keep a persistent identity that can't easily be faked, but without a ready made way to censor or de-platform things. This is a tough balance to strike
I agree that there needs to be an âoeuncancelableâ platform â" not because I believe in the so-called âconservativeâ(TM) opinions expressed on Parler, but because I believe in the need for platforms which canâ(TM)t be suppressed at the whims of billionaires or governments. Even if it allows people to be wrong or misguided. Anyone who is not willing to pay the price of obnoxious people speaking loudly is NOT actually for free speech.
The answer, unfortunately is is not for some billionaire to buy a platform and declare it uncancelable.
We need to work towards a standards based infrastructure (possibly employing encryption or Tor-like technology) which is truly anonymous and resistant to technical attempts at censorship. Everything else is just self-gratification.
From what I understand, hydrogen from electricity is very inefficient. Wouldnâ(TM)t it be better to charge giant batteries and send them overseas, or smelt aluminum/iron/etc from their oxides using the same energy to be turned into heat or other forms of energy in Germany?
This sounds like a âoefor showâ kind of âoegreenâ project ⦠kind of like carbon capture etc.
I guess it does have the advantage of feeding directly into a gas type of infrastructure â¦
No. Just no.
I speak for every 80s kid here: you clearly have no idea what youâ(TM)re talking about.
Of course we bought entire CDs for one or two songs we liked. Thatâ(TM)s all that was available. Nobody bought singles â" and not every song was available as a single.
Mixtapes were our playlists. Also â" not every song we wanted was accessible. We got them off the radio or from our friends.
I listen to a lot of audiobooks and podcasts, almost always while driving.
Iâ(TM)ve also listened to a lot of text to speech for the same reason.
Even after general AI exists, if that day ever comes, itâ(TM)ll be a while before audiobooks can be narrated by AIs are good enough to listen for tens of hours
The only words that come to mind are âoeperversion of justice.â
Outcome of a legal case should not provide a financial interest for otherwise uninterested third parties.
This is akin to putting people in arenas and having them fight to death while the rich bet on the outcome.
Decarbonizing a product that is literally carbon doesn't make sense. It never did, it never will.
"Clean Coal" and "Carbon Capture" simply greenwashing tactics which are used by politicians to pander to the coal and fossil fuel lobby. Even if it is theoretically possible to do this, the money would be better spent building cleaner energy sources. The fact that the money was wasted should surprise absolutely no one -- they themselves know this is not real.
It may, at some point, make sense to look into CO2 capture technologies to take it out of the atmosphere. This should be done AFTER we stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere
It is idiotic that the survey lumps it with Windows 7 which was arguably one of the best versions.
Probably made by someone who hasnâ(TM)t used anything other than a tablet in his life
I do wonder how this construction method will fare in the long run.
Once we see how these houses perform in 5-15 years, I think this might (barring any major failures and of course with some refinement) be the default.
For more complicated projects, this might provide for faster construction of certain parts of the house.
Time is expensive.
Your Harrison Bergeron references are unfortunately wasted here
If they kill the stupid virus-like product, no tears will be shed.
Of course, the product will probably stay
I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato
