What are you talking about? The telescope is in Hawaii because Hawaii is close to the equator and if you're closer to the equator you can see more of the sky. It's noticeably closer to the equator than the Canary Islands. And mountaintops are better because of thinner air, less water vapor, and less light pollution.

It's a telescope site for a reason, not just because scientists wanted a trip to Hawaii.

It's the same reasoning used to demand that people use busses instead of cars in the first place. Using a bus takes longer and requires that you walk to the stop. Those things are costs that the passenger has to pay, and advocates of busses fail to treat those costs as important. Once you've reasoned that far, what's different about making people walk an extra block by cutting down stops, compared to making people walk to the stop anyway?

"It violates the letter of the Constitution, but is allowed by the spirit" is toxic to rule of law. Everyone who wants to violate the Constitution can claim that what they are doing is consistent with the spirit, because the spirit is a vague thing that it's easy to talk your way around.

It's like saying the Constitution allows freedom of speech, but clearly the spirit of the law is that it shouldn't include harmful speech, even though they "forgot" to actually write that in.

The article is about a specific type of cancer, and "up to" 20000 times better. The title just says "cancer" and no "up to".

Look up Operation Chokepoint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The government said that the payment processors couldn't process gun payments. They only stopped ot because it became a scandal (and maybe because the administration changed).

Yes they were. Obvious example: https://forum.rpg.net/index.ph...

Notice there's no requrement to be posting any lies in there. And the judgment of what counts as lies is biased anyway--remember when Hunter Biden's laptop was a lie?

So they can ban him for any reason they want; he has no right to their services. Freedom of speech only applies to the government.

Or at least this is what you would hear a couple of years ago when people were being banned from public forums or social media for conservative viewpoints. I guess suddenly it really is a terrible injustice for a private company to ban someone for private company reasons.

The fact that if "racist stuff" is permitted, the government can't censor by claiming that anti-government material is racist stuff.

No, the quickest way to get your resume into the trash pile is to not pass the automatic keyword scanner, which will toss out your resume without a human even looking at it. Even being in a position where a human can read your resume and might think it doesn't stand out enough, is already a hurdle to clear.

TV Tropes has a page of this stuff. Unfortunately, whether something is the "same game" as was announced years later is a fuzzy thing. Swordquest: Airworld has a cool 39 year delay. If you think that doesn't count as the same game that was originally announced, American Hero was originally meant for release in 1995 and came out in 2021, which is 26 years.

There's nothing intrinsic about freedom of speech that requires any specific tool.

Political ads are exempt from FTC rules about false advertising. And you really wouldn't want the government to have the power to ban false political advertising because the opportunities for the government to abuse it against their political opponents are very, very, obvious.

If the librarians don't want a book in the library it's never going to be there in the first place for anyone to try to ban it. So this makes it a politically skewed list--any right-wing book that leftists would want to ban probably won't be in the library in the first place. so no need to ban it.

Also note the careful wording "targeted for bans", which is to say not banned.

They didn't claim that the chatbot is a person. They claimed that they weren't responsible for what their agents say. The judge then inferred that that meant they were calling the chatbot a person.

It's a fair inference under the circumstances, but they didn't actually say it outright.

Because the political requirements for the Oscars are ones which we're supposed to approve of, while the political requirements for the Hugos by China are ones which we're allowed to disapprove of. (This is different from the political requirements for Hugos in previous years based on social justice, which we're also supposed to approve of.)

By that reasoning, the activists could name a presidential candidate, claim that only that candidate's policies keep us from being dead, or even just that only that candidate will get us a healthy economy. The company's priority would then have to be electing the presidential candidate.

Short-term, immediate, effects on the company's profit are much harder to fudge than "do this policy or we're dead" or "do this policy or the economy's toast". Especially when you're trying to compare the costs of different policies.