I think the moderation problem isn't address here, because Chris Best doesn't have a handle on what the actual problem is. If he uses his product (I don't know, I don't bother with them) then it's as a content producer, and if he looks at some, he's looking at it probably on an internal system, perhaps with internal filters applied to remove a lot of the scum (like looking at a NYT piece with the comments set to 'NYT recommended only'. As 'CEO' he's never had to get down in the weeds, and spend hours doing the content moderation work. I spent 15 years doing it at TorrentFreak and it's horrible soul-destroying work. You see things far less in terms of simplistic right and wrong. Sometimes things look bad on first glance but are redeemed when taken in context. Some things look ok on their own but then look terrible in greater context (such as a string of comments in a thread that collectively push a strong anti-semetic screed. I think he assumes that 'bad comments' are along the lines of 4chan shitposting, and not some of the vitriol that's out there now, some posing as reasonable arguments. Seriously, him going 'undercover boss' (but not really) in the trenches in the content moderation team might open his eyes to reality. Might open the eyes of all kinds of CEOs, because the musks, zucks, Neil Mohan, etc. might benefit from actually seeing and interacting with the bad comments directly, instead of being shielded from it by well-meaning protective underlings.
someone was asking me the other day about the Musk/tiabbi thing, and the substack mess, and didn't understand what substack was. I think I came up with the best, simplest explination for what it is. "Substack is basically an onlyfans for people whose kink is paying for badly written bullshit" apologies to the few good writers [still] on there, but that's what it feels like it's become.
Maybe you should learn to read. That's not even close to what that page says. The paragraph says:
In January 2022, Page lost an effort to revive the defamation case over Isikoff's article. Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said "the article at the crux of the case—by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff—was either completely truthful or, 'at a minimum,' conveyed a true 'gist,' even if it included some 'minor' or 'irrelevant' incorrect statements." Bloomberg Law reported that "The court dismissed as far-fetched Page's theories about a conspiracy among interconnected media and political figures to tarnish Trump by concocting the Russia investigation from thin air."[517]I kept the reference number to make it easy to find, although it's not hard as it has the only 'concoct' on the page. The judge said it's true, and factual, it was Carter Page trying to say it was made up.
Tell us all you've never done any research, without saying you've never actually done any research, because if you had, you'd know exactly where I was during the whole saga. I'm 99.9% sure I know a lot more about the case than you, and from a lot closer.
they really are the most frightfully fragile little goobers aren't they. And the sad thing is, it's such a core part of their identity, that they absolutely can't bare the thought of not being able to spew vitriol online with little/no consequences, I guess because they're just too afraid of an ass-whupping (by any half-disabled grandmother or better) if they tried it offline.
no-one said there was. Literally the comment you replied to just said that it's becoming a bit of a shithole place, and you chose that to whine about frozen Prunus persica The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Sounds like you're REALLY afraid it'll go back to how it was, and you won't be able to continue hurling shite at people without anyone caring. It really does seem to be a core part of your identity that you're afraid to let go of.
they have been hanging around each other digitally. People like KDC feed his persecution complex, and amplify it with their own. I mean 'KDC got a SWAT raid, and then his wife left him and was partying with the PM's son, and took his company from him' - how could elon reject such a story? I mean the fact that KDC put the company in Mona's name for tax and lawsuit reasons is beyond musk, or that guys like KDC and musk can't keep relationships because they're fundamentally unlikeable people never crosses their mind...
Look, you can't go expecting the cops to have to do things like "follow the law", and "know the law" - I mean if you're going to put restrictions like that on them, and make them abide by obscure things like 'the constitution', then why would anyone want to be a cop?
I suspect that the reason you can't "write a contract that says "it can remove you for any reason"" is not because of legal restrictions, but because of basic competence limitations.
Actions like this are some of the biggest means by which rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the basic competence of politicians. After all, competent politicians wouldn't put incompetent's judges in office, or allow them to continue. As for this judge, attempting to enforce an action using a law that was already deemed unconstitutional shows he's not fit for office. The question is if it's a case of him just not being mentally up to the task, if he's letting his personal/political feelings impact his judgement, or if he's literally been paid off to do this. Unfortunately for him, he fucked up, BIGLY. And it's time that judges be held to task for their inability to discharge their offices honestly and independently. So he should maybe face a corruption in public office investigation, and be suspended from the bench while it's ongoing.
No, that isn't 'practicing medicine', that is 'repeating established pharmacology'. And yes usually antiparasitics are not antivirals, they're two different things. I'm amazed you managed to type all that though, because all that twisting and spinning you had to do would have left me too dizzy to write anything resembling english. Is it due to practice, or is there a 'special trick' like dancers use to avoid getting dizzy when they do some crazy spinning?
So, any misconduct should give - as a STARTING POINT - the same penalty as the inconvenience. So, he caused a false inprisonment of 128 days, and at least two more instances, so lets's say 130. So as a starting point, there's 130 days in prison for Hughes. As it was through deliberate choice (didn't just slip his mind, all this was premeditated) that should provide an aggravating factor, and double it. So there's 260 days in prison before anything else. This should be the STANDARD for any police officer caught acting improperly by falsifying, or concealing evidence - the case tossed and those that conspired get double the penalty they inflicted on others. It'd be a GREAT deterrent to that kind of dirty cop behavior. Next, as he had an illegal warrant, so let's start charging him with the crimes related to that. So that's breaking and entering, commission of a felony while armed. false imprisonment (kidnapping?) Oh, police officers not liking the charges being stacked like that? You prefer it when it's done to others not you? Tough shit. Can't do the time, then don't do the crime. Just do your job properly and honestly then.
:-P
Australia has the AFL, which plays on an oval pitch, and has 4 goal posts (malbourne, richmond, collingwood, essendon, hawthorn and carlton all use the Melbourne Cricket Club as their home stadium, the GWSydney Giants use the GIANTS stadium, which was the olympic baseball stadium. And American football is like rugby for the under 5s (you pad them, let them take a break every minute or so, give them a small field and let them have 10 yards for 4 downs and not 5 downs for the whole field. About 20 years ago I looked into the possibility of an international charity game for 9/11 and when I asked plasyers of two NFL teams (I was at an event with both the oakland raiders and the SF giants in november 2001) they both said no, because rugby players are F**king crazy. and I've had rugby players say the same about Aussie-rules players. Likewise, these days Aussie politicians are rapidly turning into 'fucking nuts' people, crazy lunatics eager to destroy anything like cracked-up Bogans, with this idea of encryption bypassing. Because if you put in a backdoor to encryption you no longer have encryption much as that TSA padlock is less secure now than a velcro loop to hold your zip together, because velcro takes as long to open but also makes a noise (a point I made in this talk a few years back with EFF Kurt Opsahl's and AccessNow's Amie Stepanovich.
Weird how they couldn't ask Maricopa SO if they could borrow a drone, since they had 56 of them as of last summer.
Four Inspire 2's, sixteen M300's, eight Matrice 210's, and 28 Mavic 2s (four Zoom's, twelve Pro's, and twelve Enterprise Zoom's)
So, this incident that they need the drones for, happened inside Maricopa county, and yet 56 drones did nothing. What do they think PhoenixPD adding a few more would do?
Last I checked, they don't come with a 'time rewind' feature, where you can go fly one where it happened and then have it record what happened hours earlier.
BTW, I checked out the map. It's almost exactly 6 miles direct from Phoenix PD HQ to the incident (and a 7.7 mile drive). It is 8.8 miles to Glendale PD's HQ.
Distance from the incident to Maricopa County SO? 2.9 miles - its almost mid-way between the incident and the Phoenix PD HQ.
(anyone that knows the area, it's right by the Marshals and fed-ex distribution centers between broadway and buckeye just east of the 202)
There's this phrase I keep hearing "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear", I just wish I could remember what the people who constantly repeat that phrase do for a living....
I for one would love to be a Big Tech Lobbyist. How do I go about that? I'm assuming it's well paid? So, how did all those people in your office become lobbyists, Blumenthal?
Whats that? You want me to "get off your lawn'"?
Thing is, first sale doctrine is a doozie.
They've sold it to someone and now it's theirs. Documents are not under copyright, so they can't make a copyright claim, and under the first sale doctrine they can distribute it out to anyone they want, as the SCOTUS made clear in Kirtsaeng.
You'd have a point, if it wasn't that ContentID was developed in 2008
exactly this I'm the same, and I'm nothing like him. No-one I know is.