pixelgeek

8 ms·

31.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Maybe the squirrel sent in a DMCA takedown?
32.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
> It's not a cult. It never is. It is often, in my experience, a marker of a particular [political bias on the part of the author. > A move to BEVs breaks lots of business models. There are going to be a lot of dramatic changes c
33.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
That is why I dug into the article a bit further. Editorial teams in sites are notorious for taking the author's suggested title and replacing it with clickbait BS. That said, he uses the term in the article himself
34.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
I am not arguing against his thesis. The presentation and tone just puts me off. And even if he is correct, that doesn't give one the moral authority to look down your nose at the opposing camp. Its difficult to say that someone else s
35.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Would be nice if he could divorce the opinion from the reporting in the piece. The use of the word 'cult' to describe people who disagree with you is also not only annoying but flags the article as being too opinion driven to be w
36.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Can you do a short call if you own Class B shares?
37.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Not at retail. No.
38.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
I recall in the days after the web-bust that there were numerous employees that were stuck owing huge tax bills because of the price their stock vetted at and were unable to do so because the prices had tanked. I am really unable to recall
39.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Well this certainly makes sense in a country where people can't afford healthcare at all and some even do their own dentistry.
40.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Well the US taxpayer is paying for it. It is military equipment that is transferred to police departments https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/24/pros-j24.html
41.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
It isn't a recent issue. Progressives in the US were warning about this trend in the 1980s
42.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
> Defund advocates dismiss these arguments—not because they can refute them with evidence, but because they’re blinded by ideology. I don't know how you are supposed to take a writer seriously when they write things like this. >
43.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
She thought it was good enough to host it.
44.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
I think that if you like how it looks then you would want to use it in as many apps as possible. My main editor has several themes that are copies of themes from other apps so its not something that is unique to Dracula.
45.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Their PR really puts me off. Makes me think the authors are sneering at everyone who uses JSON. And who says they get to deprecate anything?
46.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
I just found it to be a wall of noise. It didn't give me any sense that I had any control over what was going on.
47.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
No. I think people are deliberately misusing a word to imply totalitarian control.
48.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
I made this comment a while ago in relation to Facebook and had some folks reference the specific US law that makes that not the case.
49.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
But that isn't what that 'poem' is about.
50.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
I don't think that there is any in Stalin's rise to power[0] that would fit the definition. The post you are responding to also refers specifically to the Slippery Slope Fallacy[1] which is a different beast than just calling some
51.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
> It's the tyranny of selectively enforcing the rules and hiding behind it. Well I can't disagree with that. It is endemic of Google, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, Apple etc. When these companies deal with the sheer volume of user
52.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
I think this really just speaks to the problem of people relying on platforms like this for news. The system can easily be gamed and there is something about the immediacy of it that tends to inflame people. Which I suspect is why there are
53.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
> I'm pretty confident that if a suitable case made it to the supreme court, social media like Twitter would be deemed a de facto public square under the US Constitution. Any case law to that effect?
54.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Twitter didn't suspend the account for not being reputable. They suspended the account for being part of a network that was artificially promoting tweets and content. You're arguing a point that Twitter never made
55.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
I think so. Its typically the equivalent of 'nudge, nudge, wink wink' so if it was subtle people would miss the point
56.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
> But if they're acting on behalf of powerful state actors, how can we say that's not suppression on speech? Well you would first have to prove that they were acting on the behalf of powerful state actors. Does anyone have that
57.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Or for being a part of a network that was doing so. I suspect that it is more likely that they were just part of a system that was promoting tweets and reposting material
58.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
No I think that 'corporate-speak' is the term for that. And it clearly doesn't get the point across since there are any number of people posting that this in an incorrect use of the word. I think what is happening is that som
59.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
I don't think you really understand what newspeak[0] is supposed to be. From wikipedia (or a reading of the book) "Newspeak is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual&
60.
by pixelgeek 5y ago
Why would you be surprised that an account that was accused of being part of a content system spreading misinformation would be suspended? A person can say what they want but no-one is forced to listen to it or help promote it. As well, if

More ›