Well as a gentleman that is when one must arrive. 🧐

🏴‍☠️

Also lets build solar farms over more pavement rather then more grass and farmland.

Elephants and submarines. Can’t wait for next update to drop, the devs are getting more creative with this!

I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation’s in… We kept it grey!"

Bureaucratic babbel at it’s finest.

Let’s look at this from the other perspective too.

“Rich boss can’t stand human contact, trains a computer to think and talk like him to interact with underlings in his place.”

That’s why. Because Zucker can’t be bothered to speak with the rest of us any more then he must.

Let’s look at this from the other perspective too.

“Rich boss can’t stand human contact, trains a computer to think and talk like him to interact with underlings in his place.”

This is great!

The incorrect assumption here is that disbelief is an active state. Denouncment and denial may be active states of thought, but disbelief is a passive state. Like the way that on and off are an active and passive state, respectively. The argument that disbelief implies the denial of something that therefore must exist to be denied at all is inherently flawed by this assumption. If I, being in a state of ignorance of subject “x”, would have neither belief nor disbelief in “x”, but total unawareness of "x"s potential existence as a subject. To then be told by an outside perspective that “x” exists and I must believe in that existence without any proof of the claimed state of “x”, I could choose to continue without further consideration of “x” and my existence would continue without belief or disbelief in “x”, only knowledge of that concept existing for outside perspectives. However, I could more easily explain this reasoning to others with the simple statement “I do not believe in “x”.” My statement would be reductive and simplistic, yes, but would do nothing to prove that “x” must exist and hold my belief because I have any knowledge of its concept.

The claim must be proven by the one making it, not the one being told of it.

But all jokes aside, do give back by seeding your torrents. Some stuff is hard to get complete copies because of leechers.

Beard oil. It exists, it is amazing, and it stopped my itching. I comb a little into my beard every one or two days, takes like 5 minutes if I go slow.

The third boob didn’t give it away?

Jokes on you, the US doesn’t understand price by Liter, only Dollars per freedom unit!

/s …?

Change the flat tire on my bike and go for a ride with my son.

I understand. I’m ND so it’s hard for me to pickup social cues as it is, text makes it especially hard to figure out emotion or intention at times.

Thank you again for helping me understand a little better. 😁

The only reason I’m wary of any vegan meat is because I have a terrible soy intolerance. Almost all the stuff at my local grocery store that’s ‘meatless’ is soy based. For a while they carried a brand that was pea protein based, and it was delicious. Sadly, that brand is not in stock anymore.

Local High school kids build them for a graded project around where i live, so not very difficult for an adult to handle.

This is why I asked if anyone could clarify for me. Thank you for explaining in a more natural manor, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me.

With your clarification, it definitely seems to me like the protections in place should stay there. Maybe there are issues with some of these companies, but I don’t think removing these particular protections will change the issues I see, just stifle open speech.

This is exactly why I asked if anyone could clarify for me, I didn’t understand what was really being put on the political table here. Thank you for elucidating, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me. I understand that’s often done purposely by the people submitting such legislation, so I usually have to find someone who can understand it better then I can.

Answering my own question, it seems that “Sunset acts” are a common occurrence in legislation that end programs and activities that have more or less run their course or stopped being effective or meaningful.

The reason this Sunset Act is being mentioned is…

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act was created to protect early internet platforms from lawsuits over user-generated content, a safeguard widely seen as essential to the internet’s development. As social media companies have become some of the nation’s most powerful and influential corporations, critics have questioned whether that protection should remain.

… so my understanding is that this Sunset will remove some outdated protections from social media platforms, effectively forcing them to adapt with better policies and practices or open themselves up to litigation.