My understanding was that this rule led to some pretty bad “strategic voting” to try to organize securing both presidency and vice presidency, and became a tangled political mess that was improved greatly by having them bundled together on one ticket.
Of course, if you want to talk about strategic voting, infinitely better would be to kill FPTP voting.
I think copyright should expire the moment it is no longer actively being printed or produced. Out of Print should equal Out of Copyright. For older works, it they’ve ever gone out of print, that’s a good time to enter the public domain. Go ahead and get a good initial run, but when you cease making your living off it, let others have a try.
I understand this is not a popular take. I could compromise and allow the original 14 year + 14 year renewal.
Let’s think about upper tolerable limits: there’s zero justification for copyright existing past the death of the original author, and I emphasize original author as the sale of copyrights to corporate entities offends me deeply. I would see copyrights as licensable, but never fully transferable or even ownable by any but a non-corporate human individual.
But even the lifespan of the original author seems a bit long.
To be perfectly honest, in my true ideal world, copyright would not exist, and payment for works of art would not exist except in as much as everyone on earth would receive everything they need to live and thrive. Art would then be created by artists because they want to create art, and there would be no restriction on use whatsoever.
What can I say? It’s a catchy tune!
I signed onto a sailing ship
My very first day at sea
I seen the Mermaid in the waves
Reaching out to me
“Come live with me in the sea,” said she
"Down on the ocean floor
And I’ll show you a million wondrous things
You’ve never seen before"
So over I jumped and she pulled me down
Down to her seaweed bed
On a pillow made of a tortoise-shell
She placed beneath my head
She fed me shrimp and caviar
Upon a silver dish
From her head to her waist it was just my taste
But the rest of her was a fish
'Cause her hair was green as seaweed
Her skin was blue and pale
Her face it was a work of art
I loved that girl with all my heart
I only liked the upper part
I did not like the tail
But then one day, she swam away
So I sang to the clams and the whales
"Oh, how I miss her seaweed hair
And the silver shine of her scales"
But then her sister, she swam by
And set my heart a-whirl
Cause her upper part was an ugly fish
But her bottom part was a girl
Yes her hair was green as seaweed
Her skin was blue and pale
Her legs they are a work of art
I loved that girl with all my heart
And I don’t give a damn about the upper part
'cause that’s how I get my tail
The jewish teaching of this is a little different. See, in Sodom, they were wealthy and only wanted to associate with the wealthy. Poverty was criminalized, and charity doubly so— and by criminalized, I mean that beggars and charity seekers were to be systematically punished with ritualized gang rape before being cast out of the walls.
So, like you said, some angels come to visit Lot, and he invites them into his home and gives them a meal. The neighborhood gets wind of this, realizing that his guests are not foreign CEOs come to make a business deal but rather some dudes without money that are getting some sweet charity— “stealing” from the city’s prosperity. Lot comes out and is like, don’t you dare touch these guys, take my family instead, and the crowd is like, “no way, you guys are loaded and help make our city rich. Give us these fucking poors so we can humiliate them and run ‘em out of town, we have no desire to run you (and your money) out of town. Step aside!”
Bit of a different take, with a bit of a different message. Now, what were the angels there for?
Well, god was talkig to Abraham and saying, “hey, Sodom is a such a blight on the landscape for their sheer greed that I’m going to wipe it off the face of the earth” and Abraham is like, “hey, there’s gotta be SOME good people there, right? Like at least ten?” And god said if they could find ten good people left in the city it wouldn’t be destroyed. So the angels show up, and basically the entire city is there on the doorstep trying to legally gang rape them for the crime of not being rich. So the city gets nuked.
People who watched his videos making wood flavored ice creams probably did.
I’m pro piracy, and anti-copyright (or at least, anti copyright as it exists today). That said, steam is a legitimate competitor to piracy AND can coexist with it.
Steam— Cons: it costs money. DRM exists. Pros: the majority of the money goes to devs, great ui, fantastic networking tools (they literally have invested in additional physical networking wires (OSI layer 1) to expand bandwidth for use in gaming on their platform), consumer oriented discovery of new titles, consumer oriented review tools, useful socialization functionality, automatic updates, easy and simple access to developer communication, easy mod support, customer support/service, and there’s probably more I haven’t thought of off the top of my head.
Piracy— Pros: free, no drm Cons: less convenient than steam, have to be scam/virus aware, needs privacy protection to be safe and to keep up with what the minimum requirements for being safe are, requires technical skill and know-how, lacks all steam’s pros.
And the nice thing is, piracy still exists, so if you need a drm free version for any reason at all, it’s still there!
Fellow Tom Scott “Lateral” fan, eh? :)
Only on my TV, where my family watches youtube through our PS4. Old kids shows and taskmaster and the like. It’s incredibly obnoxious— ads play when you open the video, and if you want to simply restart it move to the correct place it’ll play the ads again, and the ads can be 60 seconds long each time. They also pop these unskippable ads up at the most obnoxious moments in the videos.
The “next ad” button often does bring the time-to-skip down by ten seconds or so, at least. Still obnoxious. But I’m not sure about a better way to access YouTube and Disney+ and Prime Video etc etc on the tv from one device, and, well, I have a 4 year old, so doing without is not much of an option.
I think it’s kinda refreshing when Hollywood actors get married and then show evidence that they genuinely like who they married, you know? It’s sweet. There’s too many times we’ve seen it go otherwise.
100% runs are great, but no need to add challenge restrictions like handsaws only here. I suspect a multiplayer mod was used here anyway, like the one made for Mario 64– those can get pretty wacky.
I’m on a once a day pill (the generic of strattera, if you care) and strangely, if I make it a morning pill, I forget it almost every time, but as a just before bed routine, I seem to remember every single time. No idea what the difference is in my head. It’s just how it works for me, I guess?
I seem to recall that people found that the like and dislike buttons equally improved the video’s visibility in the algorithm, causing many youtubers to genuinely suggest disliking the video as their call to action.
I’m for smartwatches in general.
About a year ago, I was measuring my blood oxygen on a regular basis for a medical condition, and the oxygen meter thingy wasn’t very convenient to carry around all the time. So I got an Apple Watch (non us models had blood oxygen monitoring even back then) for the convenience and logging. This was genuinely my only concern.
The fact that the watch was displaying my exercise time and calories burned was startling to me… and extremely motivating in a way that quite literally blew my mind. I started exercising regularly, working out. My health started improving in general. I started counting calories and losing weight. I lost weight. I gained muscle that I’ve never had in my life.
I had a friend try to tell me that I could have done all these things without a smartwatch to tell me things. Empirical evidence for decades indicates otherwise. I’ve been told that it’s a crutch and that I’m a lesser man for using it. But you know, you use crutches when you can’t do what other people do. I absolutely love my smartwatch and will hear nothing against it.
I have no opinions on brands or specific models in general. They’re pretty much all the same to me. Get whatever has the features you want and like. As far as I know my apple health data stays local to my phone and my data exports, so I feel pretty safe there.
There’s a related saying: all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Now, I don’t typically like that saying as a GENERAL aphorism applied to everything, but when applied to nazis? It absolutely applies.
The reason there’s 10 nazis at the table is because the other 9 are tolerating the nazi. And tolerating a Nazi is tantamount to collaboration. All they need is tolerance to themselves, and they’ll take that and use it to not tolerate the rest of the world (see: paradox of tolerance).
There’s a saying… “If there are ten people sitting at a table eating dinner, and one of them is a nazi, you’ve got ten nazis.”
I’m not sure exactly which region, but I know for a fact that there is a region in Canada that speaks like this. I thought it was just a joke until I met someone from there. My memory suggests maybe from near Winnipeg? I could be entirely wrong there, it was twentyish years ago. (We were both volunteering for Hurricane Katrina cleanup in Mississippi)
Anyway, he legitimately had the most stereotypical thick THICK Canadian accent I’ve ever heard before, and at first I was convinced it was affected or a joke he was making. Nope, that’s just how he talked.
There is no such thing as a weapon that is only capable of being used for defense. It’s a logical contradiction on the order of a true paradox such as “this statement is false”. It is theoretically possible to have some sort of defensive shield with no way to move it, but even such a thing could be deployed offensively as an area denial tactic, ask any rts player. If you can stop force, it can be used as force.
Another way to think about it is the old question of which would win, the proverbial unstoppable force, or the immovable object? Einstein’s theory of relativity gave us a framework to say that both terms refer to exactly the same thing. An immovable object, by definition, is actually an unstoppable force. And an unstoppable force, by definition, is an unmovable object.
So it goes with weapons. A weapon is a weapon by its nature. It is only the wielder who decides if it is defensive or not. If you can’t trust the wielder, then you can’t trust the wielder, and that’s basically it, and the root of all problems.
Add in that there’s no cheating involved, and the niche gets even smaller.