Oxford dictionary:

rational adjective
1.â (of behaviour, ideas, etc.) based on reason rather than emotions
  - a rational argument/choice/decision
  - rational analysis/thought

Rational analysis/thought is a deductive thought process based on reasoning and logic. Ignoring what science tells us because it's inconvenient or emotionally upsetting isn't rational.

I want to point out that a person being scientifically ignorant and making decisions on that basis, especially if they consciously ignore established science, isn't rational. Being rational implies taking all available factors, information and outcomes into consideration before making a decision or conclusion.

That my opinion anyway, yours may differ.

The article is about the 4K HDR release of the movies but he isn't wrong about the TV-series. I haven't seen any good remasters of them at all and the original DVD-releases are really atrocious quality wise.

Thanks for the link. If the reviewer is correct it seems Paramount went back and did a better job this time.

So can anyone tell me if this is a pure moneygrab or if they have actually re-scanned and cleaned up the the originals to get something that actually benefit from being 4K?

I guess the object kept moving for 1.9b years before the we detected the burst.

Studies have shown that the ROI for lobbying politicians can be up to 22,000%. That's kind of mindboggling and it shows how corrupt the system is for lobbying politicians directly, but a blogger having a paid opinion will never see that kind of money or effect. The proposed law is all about either silencing critics or forcing them out into the open, it's a precursor to politicians lese majeste.

I'm not sure what you mean with entrapment in this context. In general, entrapment means the intent was to induce a person to commit an act that have negative consequences for them. If there is no such intent, there is no entrapment either.

If you are thinking that distributing url's that points to copyrighted works is a form of entrapment, see the reasoning above. Real life situations doesn't usually reduce down to such simplistic outcomes since lacking intent for an action isn't really a good excuse in a court of law although it may help a bit how bad the outcome will be.

And if you don't enter the site and just use a m3u file you found you haven't agreed to nothing - there is no contract.

There was no content distributed since m3u-files are just contain url's. What people did with those files is an entirely different matter.

Then they lied on the DMCA-request since no content they owned was in the github repo..

My takeaway from this, the studios do what they always do since the DMCA was made law, they use it as a bludgeon even on things they don't own the rights to. And Pluto, talk about being naÃve techno-illiterates to some degree. If you are going to have a free streaming service based on monetizing users habits you damn well make sure only those users can access the content the approved way with some sort of verification, whether it being cryptographic, user accounts or something else.

The other thing about phages is that they are dirt-cheap to manufacture, breed a phage for a particular infection, stick them in a bio-reactor for mass-production and after a couple of weeks you have tens of thousands or more doses ready for packaging and distribution.

The USSR was quite active in researching and using phages to treat infections and they didn't solely rely on on antibiotics like the west did after WWII. There's a quite a good writeup about the history of phages here: https://royalsocietypublishing...

I disagree that it isn't a security measure too, banning any kind social media apps from government equipment means one less intrusion-vector to worry about.

The elephant in the room that many seem to miss, it's not the algorithm's recommendation that did the harm, it was the content. That leads to some interesting consequences for the petition. If the petition is granted the court's evaluation will then only deal with proximate cause and that means the petitioners no longer have grounds for a claim because they explicitly claimed that the algorithm was the cause of the harm - not the content.

Explain how such a narrow ruling could only affect major social media companies?

What would the criteria be? Number of users? Revenue? Type of algorithm?

The problem with section 230 is it was twisted by big tech to suit their own agenda purposes rather than use it to dwell and create a usable public space.

No, it functions exactly as intended. If you have a beef with that statement, take it up with the people who actually wrote the law - Ron Wyden and Chris Cox.

Yes, literally nothing will happen on the internet anymore that involves users because companies will shutter any kind of user interaction due to liability reasons and to avoid being inundated with frivolous lawsuits. Welcome to the read-only internet.

Say you assign a weight to content how unpopular it would be for most of their users which a filter then operates on to remove everything except the content that are the least unpopular.

Would the above be considered to be a recommendation? Of course it would, recommendations are just the data-set left after filtering out the uninteresting/unpopular stuff.