Explain to me why for a while facebook almost only presented me midgets in bikinis on my timeline? That was weirdly and overly specific.

Max Headroom did this already in its pilot. ("Blipverts").

And the episode "Dream Thieves".

And almost every other episode...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(TV_series)#Episodes

Anyone has been wondering why that show is never on re-runs?

As I read the story, the limitations were only set in the web GUI, like limiting date selection or not offering a button to cancel a reservation. And honestly, that sounds like something someone would be like "nah, just limit the date picker in the GUI and keep the API as flexible as possible"

Here you can sign up for it up to 4 times per year and get the pick up date.

Who would use a website when there is an API?

I remember times past when half of the /. users would prefer writing a curl script over going to a website to get things done if there was an API.

The AI used the available API. API are meant for computers to talk directly to each other.

We should think in APIs and not in Apps since the advent of smartphones.

An API gives a defined interface that defines capabilities, access rights and hides away the actual process implementation details from the process caller. Why would the AI be expected to use the website, that is nothing but a human useable wrapper around the API? With the same logic we could expect an AI to call another AI run phone hotline to ask for the cinema schedule - which should have been a simple http call.

...that's why you have special collections.

I've seen way too much stuff in that movie first.

I absolutely agree. Except for the last wave of boomers, everyone is used now to do everything you need to to with any company online through the self-service settings. Sign up? Cancel? Change address? Change Plan? Reservations? Everything on the website.

Making a call s a last resort when your problem isn't covered by the standard processes on the website. If the hotline can only do the very same things, then it's useless to beginn with.

Legally and for any insurance claims: yes. But the airline reputation still would suffer by a lot.

In the end, it will depend on the actual cabin layout which will depend on their marketing. This is probably going to be marketed to people who would fly business class anyway. A 24h+ flight would be a special luxury treat (just checked Sydney - New York, even as non-non-stop flight you can do that in less than 24hrs). Due to the additional tank you have less space for passengers, an additional meal per passenger takes up even more space and we haven't even touched the "exercise areas" or the crammed coach seats....

They will probably go the Concorde route and make up for the lack of speed with more space and even more caviar.

I'm the first to admit that defining defining the limits of someones freedom can never be without problems. Yet they need to be defined, because you can't have that freedom at the cost of someone elses freedom.

I even went through the examples and commented on which of those I see as a problem, too (Pimmelgate) and which I don't see as a problem (cases of simple and clear insults). That's simply blown out of proportion.

Maybe because someone is doing exactly what you said I was doing: Pointing at someone elses problem to make your problem look smaller....

I have good news for you: You can.

But no fair and meaningful political debate or discussion (what is the actual goal freedom of speech needs to protect) can come from insults or hate. Sou you need to do it without those.

Good news again: In Germany facts aren't slander or libel either.

How do you get to that estimation? Population divided by 8,000 fails short as you can follow more than one "influencer" and creators themselves can follow others. So the maximum for followed people in a userbase of x would be x-1, if everyone followed everyone else.

That's why freedom of speech was defined in greater detail in the German constitution than the US constitution.

It was written having in mind that Hitlers rise to power was based on spewing hate speech under the cover of protected free political speech. That's why insults and hate speech never were covered by free speech rights.(*) But still free speech and political speech have a high level of protection even after enforcing anti-insult laws.

But of course this also requires some level of detail in each case. For example:

"X is lying" is usually at least a constitutionally protected opinion, if not even an additionally protected provable/disprovable factual claim.

"X is a Lier" while sounding really similar however, is a derogatory statement about a persons character. But given enough context and evidence, it may be elevated to a valid opinion.

To sum it up: You still can say everything under constitutional protection. But you are required to think about HOW you say it. And if you can't saying something without insults or threats of violence, you probably should't say it.

(*) implementation details: The constitution doesn't mention free speech by name, but splits it up into freedom of thought, freedom of opinion and freedom of expressing them.

It's almost ironic that this is reported the same week as journalists in the US getting visits from FBI agents for reporting about security concerns with the new Air Force One....

Formally, what's happening in Germany is enforcing existing laws against insults, libel and slander. I don't think any of these are legal in the US either. And I think it's a low bar to exercise your right to free speech, to do so without those.

It could even be argued that keeping insult and hate speech out of free/political speech will protect it. (Although it is debatable in which cases something can be protected by limiting it)

It's in the details of each case.

And I have to agree with the Article in one of the mentioned cases. While most of the cases boil down to simple misdemeanor cases of insults. Slap on the wrist like a speeding ticket. "Pimmelgate", however, is different. Raids were ordered by the state secretary (who was insulted) AFTER all necessary evidence has been gathered, the suspect admitted and the 1000 (or whatever a "dick" is worth these days)(*) was ready to be written. In a clear abuse of power, Andy Grote wanted to send message by having that guys apartment trashed.

So that case is a scandal in its own right, but not representative of the state of free speech in Germany. Each SLAPP case is a bigger danger to it.

(*) Update:
Before the raids happend, the suspect even has been told that his case will be dismisses because of its minor nature.
Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
containing another example of someone thinking rules apply only to other people.

But to be fair: Airplane belts with the lift-to-release are different from car belts