This is Facebook complying with the law in Australia. The law gives them a choice: pay up, or don't link. They choose "don't link", and that choice is perfectly valid.

Even if it looks a lot like a temper tantrum.

I'm not an American citizen, and I couldn't care less about the finer details of your political system. Would you care to guess again? Maybe make even more of a fool of yourself?

Perhaps Americans are also sick and tired of Hollywoke and """news sources""" that are only partisan mouthpieces that have no relation to observable reality anymore?

Lesson: don't use Google for anything permanent. Don't use their products. Don't use their services. Don't use their tools. Don't even use their f'ing search engine.

And don't forget, this risk is exactly the same for Facebook. If you use that to log in to things, be prepared to lose those things if Facebook decides to cancel you for any reason.

A message on Hackernews. Why immediately assume that people lie?

It lapsed because the owner couldn't be arsed to renew it properly, and now someone else owns it.

If she had invented a fusion reactor, it would also solve our energy and environmental problems on earth, which I thought would have been a bigger headline. The problem is of course that she didn't. But if _someone else_ invents a fusion reactor, it will (apart from saving the environment and solving our energy problems) also provide this neat way to travel through space faster.

I feel you should spend more time judging people on what they do, and less time by what they are sold as. Biden was sold to you as a saviour. By his actions, is he? You call Trump a fascist. By his actions, is he? Or do you only believe that because other people told you to believe that?

The insurrectionists were only a convenient excuse for something that's already been a long time in coming. The emancipation of the common man, ugly warts and all, was an unforeseen consequence of the internet. The globalists hate every bit of it, and want nothing more than to stomp it out. Whether you lean left or right, surely you would recognize this as a problem.

Oh, that will be interesting for these folks then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Repealing section 230 may sound attractive, but it really isn't: sure, it means the end of Facebook and Twitter, and good riddance too - but it also means the end of every other website that allows user content, such as github, steam, or slashdot. I fully understand why Biden would want that (he clearly has no interest in the public having a channel to talk to the world), but I was disappointed that Trump felt the same way.

Repeal section 230, and only a handful of corporations will have a website. It will be like communist China: only those who follow the party line will be allowed to speak at all. That's... not a good choice for the future of the world.

No, that's something I completely disagree with. Don't deny that there is a pattern of people going around and trying to attach their extremely dubious 'values' to everything. Sports, media, websites, software, politics, *everything* has to fall under their control, conform to their view of the world.

And it's just that: _their_ view of the world. That viewpoint is not universal, and even if you were so naive as to think that surely nobody would disagree with human rights, we all know what this is really about. Control. Power. The ability to cancel. The ability to rule.

I don't care if you think of yourself as 'moderate' (does that mean you only burn a couple of buildings when you riot?), we don't want your politics in our software!

The SJW. The woke. They've come for us now. They desire for open source licenses to state that you cannot use the software if they disagree with anything you've ever said or done or might say or might do. And remember: that _will_ include things like "voting republican", or "doing with business with someone who also does business with other people we disagree with". Whatever software ends up under this license is going to be untouchable; linking to it will instantly open you up to blackmail and cancelling.

What's that you say? You don't do anything of that kind? WRONG! Your speech is full of micro-agressions and your words are full of endless dogwhistles only they know how to hear and interpret. If they are not yet your masters, they desire to be. None of them have ever contributed anything to open source at all, but now they want to control it. Because it's free, and that's a situation they cannot accept.

You are misinformed: having a second angle of attack sensor was an option. It doesn't matter if it was physically installed or not, if the customer doesn't pay the licenese fee for using it it effectively does not exist. That is 100% a management decision.

Management decided to equip the plane with one sensor, and make the second sensor optional. Management decided to have a convoluted software system to skip training cost. Management decided that skipping training was so important that the pilots shouldn't even be warned about the new system. It's easy to point at the guy implementing the code that failed, but the true failure was having that code at all.

Was the bad software responsible for the decision not to train pilots, or the decision to have the second sensor as an option, or the decision to even have the software in the first place?