Iminent plausible threats of violence is not protected speech. Lying is potentially protected speech, but you can be sued for defamation. But if you can afford it, you can go right back to the park and do it again.

I'm open-minded about the possibility of creating a digital public square; meaning a medium that gives you the same rights as protected speech in a public park. But twitter is the absolute wrong mechanism for implementing it. It's fundamentally designed to get people to bicker, but not actually communicate. And if we want to do a public square, we need to update laws to explicitly designate which services we choose to implement as a public square, and leave the left to implement moderation and meta-moderation as they see appropriate. I do not want to drink from the firehose, and I do not want celebrities voices be so strongly boosted over everyone else.

And banning Trump from Twitter didn't silence him, but it did make things massively more peaceful. At least so far, I'm alright with him sticking to his little echo-chamber.

That title (Marvel's New Warriors Vol. 6) never went to print. It was quietly canceled almost immediately after it was announced. Basically no one thought it was a good idea.

Naturally. But the fact that Chinese piraters can still easily download it doesn't change the fact that this isn't a blow against censorship. China won't allow it in theatres, it gets far less visibility and zero revenue in China, end of story, Chinese censorship continues onward.

I was getting all excited to call out this comment in regards to how common law is treated for US federal cases, but I double checked my understanding, just to be sure and, dangit, I think you're quite right. If I'm not mistaken, I further suspect without bothering to check, that this guy set himself up as a business, instead of an individual, which has a major impact in relation to things like simple summary judgements.

And it sounds like that is what this guy should've said, but didn't. This issue sounds like a combination of law-nitpickery, and probably moreso, deciding whether it is not it is worth the expense and risk to fight, versus just settling by agreeing to the sale, which appears to be what happened.

? Eminent Domain is a power only afforded to the government. If the guy didn't make a facetious offer, the company would not have been in any position to try for a breach of contract claim. I agree that settling is probably the sensible thing to do now, but it's still his own fault for being in that position.

If you can get a judge to make a ruling, you're right. But in the US, you can sue anyone you like. If they aren't confident they can counter-sue or anti-SLAPP, it can be in their best interest to cave and avoid legal expenses.

I'm rather surprised that the prominence of the statue managed to get past the writing phase. Sony Pictures has been floundering for ages. I was under the impression that it really needed those China-dollars. If they don't aquiesse, it'll never get a Chinese theatrical showing (And btw, it's not exactly a blow against censorship when the fact that censoring has taken place will just be censored...)

Dangit, I apologize, I'm dumb sometimes.

I mean, if you consider participating in discourse to be "trying to get attention", then I guess you're not wrong. I don't know why you think I've got any problems with their development though. Sounds like they're doing just fine.

No, it's very different. But that requires bothering to read.

That's why the article isn't about piezo transducers. It's about vacuforming piezoelectric film through a matrix of tiny holes to create a completely different style of driver.

I suspect that what you've heard of is piezoelectric film speakers. This is related, but it is specifically an advancement on that technology. The article says up front that the film speakers go back many decades. Dividing the film up so it isn't a single vibrating surface is the novelty described here.

I think there's a perfectly good article hiding in here, but, yeah, when it gets into the foreseeable applications, it just flies off the rails into nonsense-land. I guess they're trying to grab the attention of as many industries as possible to get funding from wherever they can, but I feel like stretching like this just ends up making you look bad. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not the target audience.

They should've selected a sound sample that's more suited for what they have at the moment. They sort of torpedo themselves with the demonstration, when they really didn't have to.

Some of these problems are solvable. But some of the solutions are far from easy, like driving each dome individually with a matrix to set up standing waves. But they are a long long way from accomplishing something like that.