exasperaited

43 ms·

691.
by exasperaited 1y ago
I would love to see more scrutiny of short content because it is without doubt the most manipulative.
692.
by exasperaited 1y ago
> It's wild that they passed a law without consideration to it's mechanics or feasibility. It's not. Much of the world's governments (particularly those that follow the UK system) implement smaller laws and then deleg
693.
by exasperaited 1y ago
> A dismissive “no” is not a helpful addition to this discussion. Yes, your "no" must be more upbeat! Even if it's correct. You must be willing to temper the truth of it with something that doesn't hurt the feelings o
694.
by exasperaited 1y ago
[flagged]
695.
by exasperaited 1y ago
I accept that one can make this argument, but since not leaving your dog alone can be implemented in other ways (arranging to leave them with friends and family, arranging swap relationships with one or two other dog owners, etc.) I am not
696.
by exasperaited 1y ago
But luckily for you are sure your definition is the correct one and therefore you sling it around in accusations.
697.
by exasperaited 1y ago
There’s no simple language that has generics, operator overloading and a type system because these are not simple concepts. That’s OK, surely? There are older languages that are simple, typed and powerful like Ada and Modula-2, but these ha
698.
by exasperaited 1y ago
This is a thing I had a little "are you sure?" itch in my brain about, but you've expressed so clearly in four lines of comment, and this is me showing gratitude for the comment and the untangling of my brain. ETA: Presumably
699.
by exasperaited 1y ago
The solution is to find her a new home, yes. Sorry.
700.
by exasperaited 1y ago
> then the answer is no one should have pets That is definitely the more ethical answer, then. I do not have a pet because despite having the space and working from home, I would be asking an animal to be lonely with me when it could be
701.
by exasperaited 1y ago
And it necessarily conflates them so that the comparison is meaningful. Otherwise why not compare it to, say, gardening?
702.
by exasperaited 1y ago
I too have neighbours who have no such concerns. One of them was within hours of me calling the RSPCA to protect their terrified, yapping lonely pup until another neighbour politely talked to them. [0] Those people shouldn't have pets
703.
by exasperaited 1y ago
There is a solution to this, though, and it is the solution that generations -- generations -- of people have chosen. 1) don't have a pet that you will have to leave alone for too long because it is cruel to do this just so you have a
704.
by exasperaited 1y ago
It's literally a guy who has no right building his home where he has built it on land he doesn't own, and has spent years aggressively and violently trying to drive other people out so his friends and family can build houses on
705.
by exasperaited 1y ago
Indeed in this case what they are surely doing is resisting an onslaught of bullying pressure to retract, by addressing it this way. Unusual for the NYT to show this much spine but perhaps their bravery reflects a growing unease in the chat
706.
by exasperaited 1y ago
Why would they? Does starvation not aggravate all pre-existing conditions? The fact that anyone on earth is splitting hairs about this shows you how desperately messed up everything is. There is absolutely no moral victory whatsoever in def
707.
by exasperaited 1y ago
Good answer.
708.
by exasperaited 1y ago
You could always ask Ofcom yourself. They are an industry self-regulation body. They exist to provide that advice to businesses as well. But since the penalty is a fine proportional to revenue, I suspect there is not much Ofcom can do about
709.
by exasperaited 1y ago
Intellectual maturity.
710.
by exasperaited 1y ago
Ignorance is currency over there, I guess.
711.
by exasperaited 1y ago
It’s not whataboutism. It’s exasperated cleanupyourownbackyardism. That HN collapses into hysteria over the slightest thing happening on the other side of the Atlantic while studiously avoiding any discussion of homegrown political insanity
712.
by exasperaited 1y ago
Well, they didn't take that approach. Read the actual guidance. They in no way require "send pictures of your official identity documents to every site". There are a bunch of ways (some advisable, some not) where an existing
713.
by exasperaited 1y ago
It has broad public support. The law was passed in 2023 by the tories, and Ofcom has concluded what the tories asked them to do -- write the statutory instruments that implement the law. The Labour government would have to repeal the law (r
714.
by exasperaited 1y ago
The point I am making is that everyone in the USA is somehow absolutely certain that Britain is a hell-hole of authoritarianism because of this law, and yet 25 US states have enacted laws which are in some cases basically lunatic porn censo