iammisc

14 ms·

91.
by iammisc 5y ago
It's understandable you fell for it. Good on you for admitting it. It takes a strong mind to change their mind
92.
by iammisc 5y ago
I'm talking catholic which explicitly and unequivocally differentiates between remote and in person. Remote mass and communion is not possible period
93.
by iammisc 5y ago
Catholic mass is about receiving the eucharist. You can broadcast the mass but it's watching a TV show not getting a sacrament.
94.
by iammisc 5y ago
But they're just private companies which according to many means they can do whatever they want without repercussion
95.
by iammisc 5y ago
Please act in good faith. I did hear about that EO, but it did not do anything along what the original commenter said. There is no EO to allow 'people' to 'silence and cancel' others. Such an EO does not exist. There is
96.
by iammisc 5y ago
So I looked for all instances of 'network server'. Nowhere else in the license text is there any requirement that the source be made available on a network server, other than in that disjunctive clause I posted. Thus, I stand by m
97.
by iammisc 5y ago
How could they have 'broke' the rules (notice the headline is in the past tense), if they're still within the 30 days period? Didn't the platform 'launch' yesterday (and as far as I could tell, no one can actua
98.
by iammisc 5y ago
I did hear about that order, but it did nothing of the sort the commenter claimed it did. It did not allow 'people' to 'cancel' other people. It asked the DOJ to investigate any violations of section 230, and asked the F
99.
by iammisc 5y ago
The rules trump was asking the FCC to reconsider couldn't violate the actual written law. He was asking for administrative rules to change, and for DOJ to investigate any illegal activity under the existing law. Can you cite any user c
100.
by iammisc 5y ago
Ah sorry, then. Thanks for attempting to substantiate.
101.
by iammisc 5y ago
The original comment said: > Trump signed an executive order to allow people to "silence and cancel" Twitter users after Twitter added a fact check to a single Tweet of his. Which people were allowed to silence and cancel other
102.
by iammisc 5y ago
If there's no link to the order (EOs being publicly available), then exactly what is the claim? The two things stated in the article about new rules around section 230, which does not match your original claim of > Trump signed an e
103.
by iammisc 5y ago
Well as a Catholic, no. Mass is not valid via virtual 'remote' anything. Mailing lists? Sure. But mailing lists are run by google or other companies. Most people just text or call or tell people stuff using their mouths and ears
104.
by iammisc 5y ago
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html START QUOTE 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms. You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-
105.
by iammisc 5y ago
Well, first, they need to contact the company and ask for the source code, after they themselves have signed up, since the AGPL demands the code be available to users. If the company responds in the negative (i.e., denying they're usin
106.
by iammisc 5y ago
Right. It seems to me no one's even asked the company to provide the source and received a negative answer. They just insist that since it's not on github or publicly available that they're violating the law. The license says
107.
by iammisc 5y ago
Which executive order, can you cite or link it please?
108.
by iammisc 5y ago
It seems to me that our consumeristic culture makes people extremely jealous. As I've stated countless times here, I don't like Mark Zuckerberg, or Jeff Bezos. I want to make sure that their wealth cannot buy them the ability to a
109.
by iammisc 5y ago
> Instead the drivers rebel all the time against corporate's intransigent and blatantly-exploitative shenanigans. Hint: it's not because the company sees its workforce as people. For what it's worth, it's not like co-
110.
by iammisc 5y ago
Maybe behavioral is the right term. It's clear to me that parents can pass on behaviors. I agree... the decline of traditional culture means that there's nothing to ground these people.
111.
by iammisc 5y ago
Nothing would fundamentally change about human nature and society if the scenario in [1] comes to pass. Humans will still likely thrive and be happy, as we have for many years. Thanks for being respectful.
112.
by iammisc 5y ago
> Not that the cab industry was really all that much better. But what's wrong with Uber and the gig economy at large is that we're letting huge companies with big budgets get away with not respecting labor norms Hold on hold o
113.
by iammisc 5y ago
The idea that replacing ownership with loans will lead to good outcomes is frankly shocking to me. There's a reason all major religions historically prohibit usury (the charging of any interest, as well as enforce debt jubilees), while
114.
by iammisc 5y ago
> Which is part of how we know using them as the foundation of our economy, rather than a niche aspect of it, could work. We don't use worker cooperatives in the same way we don't use corporations. There is no overarching e
115.
by iammisc 5y ago
Absolutely. This is an angle I didn't even mention in my post, because it had already gotten wrong. Generalized statements like 'everyone knows is wrong' are a dogwhistle for 'whatever I think is wrong'.
116.
by iammisc 5y ago
> We need to not leave it up to the Kalanicks of the world to change the social order, reinventing taxis for fun and profit. Why? Uber materially improved my access to taxis. Why does everyone diss on uber's business model (I unders
117.
by iammisc 5y ago
> attributable to genetics. I didn't claim it was genetic (I did at first, but then edited my post). It could be cultural too.
118.
by iammisc 5y ago
> This is likely to be an outdated statistic at best. If you go back three or four genenerations, you will find yourself passing through a time when the US had very high inheritance taxes and a 90% top marginal tax rate. That period of t
119.
by iammisc 5y ago
It wouldn't. The free market and worker cooperatives are completely compatible. There is nothing that needs to change in the markets, only in society.
120.
by iammisc 5y ago
Yeah... I understand the danger of rent-seeking, but I too have noticed this trend. Few can cite an actual example of rent-seeking that ought to be illegal in the general case. It's mostly just like.. company XYZ did something I don&#x

More ›