Depends, are you in Ibiza?

We hate on Nintendo and Rockstar for DCMA’ing free/open source mods/project, not paid ones. If you’re charging money for a tool, you’re running a business. If your business involves another business’s product, like with AI training or freaking phone cases, legal demands like this become a fair part of doing business.

Granted there is still a power disparity to recognize, even if the guy is a douche. But it’s not unfair in the way DCMA’ing things made freely for the community is unfair.

I think we have a misunderstanding. I was trying to deacribe a system/social environment that people are born into, not the character of those people. What did you think I was saying they’re like?

Jesus, someone replace Jensen with an AI already. The bots could generate much more nuanced and empathetic responses. /SARCASM

He doesn’t get a pass on his past, but if it moves the needle on his followers, good. Better this than even more bootlicking. It’s a crisis/war right now. Accounting can happen after.

Typically, reference to whiteness is a reference to white privilege, which is the product of a social power structure that benefits white people through the systematic oppression of non-white people, i.e. a racist power structure. So referring to someone as benefiting from a racist power structure is not racist.

It’s somewhat, though not entirely, like how people born into generational wealth have privileges over people born into poverty. In this situation, it is indeed rather classist to refer to impoverished people as “the poors”, but not classist to refer to the most wealthy as “the 1%”… Because the term calls out the priveleged group in the oppressive system.

You bet there were. There were many that also just said shot/shooting. Many non-US western outlets are using killed/killing in the headline. US outlets use a mixture of language even within the same outlet, or won’t have it in the outline but will have it in the text. Here’s a title from CBS https://youtu.be/HSKaceREFlQ

I’m not saying there isn’t an overall bias towards distancing law enforcement from killings from words that carry negative connotations–there is. I was adding context to how “murder” is used in media and now I’m suggesting that some major outlets see what’s going on and are calling it what it is directly within the bounds of good journalism.

We say murder and it’s understood as people talking about what happened. When a news outlet says murder it’s considered reporting a legal conviction. There are good reasons why these conventions exist. And it’s the same as why headlines weren’t saying Luigi Mangionr murdered Brian Thompson.

The how does matter. You can appreciate the removal of a despot and still oppose unilateral regime change by force–especially one so explicitly motivated by resource exploitation. This is very different from the UN-sanctioned and NATO-led intervention that deposed Gaddafi.

Would you describe China attacking North Korea or Cambodia or another SE Asian dictatorship to depose their leadership as “accidentally doing something right”?

It’s a common mistake to assume that gun buybacks are being proposed as a solution. The solutions being proposed are a set of laws/policies to tighten gun controls, like who’s allowed to buy guns, what guns are allowed to be owned and how many, improving checks and mitigating newer loopholes.

Tighter gun controls are shown to reduce mass shootings. In Australia, the laws have loosened a lot since the big wave of gun laws in 1996. The buyback program is a consequence of bringing people in line with the new laws.

The realistic goal is not to make it absolutely impossible for a motivated extremist with lots of resources to plan and commit a mass shooting, it’s to make it much harder to prepare to do and to create more opportunities to notice their preparation.

Like I said, I agree it sucks. I’ve had the exact same thought many times.

I agree lots of things about word sucks. But FYI single page landscape is achieved by using two section breaks. It’s not ideal, but its somewhat understandable given how styles are prioritized. I’ve tried others that work well, but they also suffer on things that word does well that we take for granted.

Some people who face reasonable trade-offs in doing so have a choice. Others who face unreasonable trade-offs have less of a choice. It’s usually quite difficult to tell when it’s a stranger you’re overhearing without making assumptions.

True, but if Elon gave you $1 million in Tesla stock you could still easily sell it, be taxed on it, and use the remainder to buy a lot of bread.

Why did you have to draw my attention to this

What do you mean when you say “political”?

I think it echoes that video of those two Apache crews blowing up civilians in Baghdad and then targetting people who came to help the injured. One of the most chilling parts of that video was probably how casually routine it all seemed. Can only imagine what footage existed that never got leaked.

I agree, I’m separating the justification of the engagement from how they label people. So the parallel I’m drawing only has to do with how they loosely label people as part of a group based on broad characteristics once they decide a group can be a valid military target, i.e. “insurgents” or “narco-terrorists”.

Declaring drug smugglers as valid military targets is certainly new, but ordering strikes on military targets on the thin rationale of “hey, they look like the group we said we can hit” is not new for the US military.

If it’s not obvious, I disagree with both of these issues.

I agree, but it’s also consistent with how the US operates. Through Afghanistan’s and Iraq, anyone appearing as a military-aged male in the vicinity of an operation (e.g. a village where insurgents were shooting from) was labeled an enemy combatant and treated as valid targets.