Having just listened to it seemingly being proud[1] and coming across as completely unrepentant. The podcast only reenforced my view that Armstrong should not be given any form of celebrity or space on any platform. He needs to just go away.
1. "More than anything I'm just really proud...proud I didn't quit...with no support or anything."
In this context he was (1) asked about what he thinks his legacy will be and has mentioned that it would have been different if you asked in 2013, and (2) is talking about being proud of his achievements/choices after his professional cycling career ended, during a period when he was sort of universally reviled by many people. So I can sort of understand why he says "no support." And "quit" in this context might mean "suicide," for what it's worth.
It sounds like he mostly just rides mountain bikes around his hometown somewhere in Colorado and occasionally does a chat with cancer patients who are interested in that.
The only time I hallucinated was after a single-day double crossing of the Grand Canyon, a 15-hour run/hike iirc. I would see a random tetris game in front of me even though I never played.
Sleep deprivation in my experience can produce similar effects.
It feels like a wakeful dream. Where despite having open eyes and even interacting with the world on some level, the brain is off watching an entirely different movie.
I had a similar experience on a big multi-peak one day traverse. It was unusually hot/humid and turned into an 18 hour sufferfest. Thankfully I wasn’t the one driving afterwards, as I was hallucinating shadowy people standing in every open space along the side of the road.
Interestingly, I’ve done a few similar hikes and had plenty of energy after to cook a big pot of chili at our basecamp and enjoy a couple of beers. Exhaustion is weird.
It was definitely vivid. I can't say that I was convinced it was there because tetris blocks do not appear in nature, so I obv knew it was a hallucination.
I'm sorry these statements are simply not congruent. A private website that had quite a ubiquitous reputation (factual or not, consistent or not) for sexual web-cam encounters is not "most places." And you're being disingenuous by pretending it counts as such.
Going to Omegle is voluntary. Watching people's web cams is voluntary. Interacting with strangers from your own personal device on a site is voluntary.
There is not a reasonable expectation of having any kind of pristine interaction on such mediums.
This is in juxtaposition to private websites that effectively serve as social spaces such as Twitter, Facebook, etc because they are advertised and designed as such, they are distributed as such by major companies (Apple, etc) so it would be REASONABLE to assume you won't get some weirdo pervert on cam or some racist parading around in a KKK outfit.
Omegle was never that. Not from the start. Not during its prime time. And not obviously not towards the end.
I cannot believe I have to "fuzzy peaches" this topic since it's normally an absolutely bonkers claim designed to absolve people of responsibility and consequences. Ironically, in this case, the opposite is true.
You are responsible for going to a private site, with a known reputation, with no guarantees about what kind of interaction you have with complete total strangers from all over the world from various different backgrounds and social climates.
If you have concerns about you or your loved ones visiting that site: every single ISP on the planet will now help you setup filters over the phone or via chat. And so will vendors like Apple support.
People's choices and actions are _not your concern_ when they don't actively affect you and when you have to go out of your way to have them even be remotely relevant to your day to day life.
And if you chose to fumble your way into such a medium, the "X" button is one click away. But it was still your choice and so you are ultimately responsible for being there in the first place.
IANAL, but having a certain reputation is not enough. If you run a site where the mean time before penis is 30 seconds, you probably have to be upfront about that and promote it as a sex chat place, not "Talk to strangers! The Internet is full of cool people; Omegle lets you meet them. When you use Omegle, we pick someone else at random so you can have a one-on-one chat." (cut&pasted from Omegle).
But it wasn’t a “sex chat place.” It was a place to talk to random people on the internet. It’s common sense that encounters with dangerous people are possible when engaging with random internet strangers. It bothers me that we live in a world that is forced to cater to the lowest possible denominator. In this case we’re talking about a single instance in 14 years of service. If we live in a world that forces every service to provably cause no harm to every single human being on the planet, then we’re going to end up with the most meaningless drivel conceivable. And for the most part, we’re already well on our way towards realizing this dystopian cultural nightmare.
This is a wild argument. Going to a coffee shop is voluntary too. You good with it if someone slaps their junk down on your table?
There are standards of behaviour that apply to people regardless of context. Non-consensual sexual behaviour is one of those pretty standard basic ones.
You are responding to a stance no one has. Certainly not in this comment thread.
You left out the part where I provided examples of private spaces that implicitly act as public spaces and set expectations either directly or through social norms.
You have a very reasonable expectation of not having someone slap their junk on the table at a coffee shop. That is a physical, public space that was designed and advertised as serving coffee and literally nothing else. It is not social norms or customs to have such an act thrust upon you, and most people would reasonably find it offensive for many different reasons including health hazards.
If you went to a strip club, order a steak, are you going to complain when something similar happens? I hope not, because that would not be a reasonable expectation to have.
Omegle set the expectation upfront that largely, anything goes when you interact with strangers. That was always the case. That was the expectation. That was the point of the site.
Going to anywhere is voluntary and we still have public indecency laws. Doing it on the internet doesn't have an essential difference.
Besides, the expectation is that members will follow the rules and the Omegle Community Guidelines clearly state
> Nudity, pornography and sexually explicit conduct and content are prohibited
This is opposed to a strip club where there is an expectation of nudity. It's like going to a grocery store. "Well that's the grocery store where everyone jacks off," really isn't a convincing argument.
>Doing it on the internet doesn't have an essential difference.
It's more nuanced than that. Omegle was designed with the explicit purpose of not having any standards around the interaction between strangers.
That was THE point.
When you're done with the interaction for any reason, you click next or you exit the website.
It's a private website, it's not a physical space you're trapped in, and its primary purpose was to have many varied interactions with people, distasteful or not.
Any expectation around a pristine interaction is your fault, not the site operators'. The opposite is true when you, as another commenter alluded to, going to a coffee shop.
Applying puritanical customs is completely contrary to what the internet was built for and how it should function. This is one single corner of the internet, not a public space advertised as a standard, pristine social environment.
Absent some really abnormal situation, no one is physically trapped in a coffee shop either. Respectfully it seems like you have a conclusion or opinion and are looking to ignore some pretty basic facts to advocate for it rather than looking at the facts and forming a conclusion.
I find it hard to believe that Omegle has no standards and simultaneously has a list of standards in the Omegle Community Guidelines[1]. One of these things is false.
Can you exposit on social norms, their validity, and your methods of social reasoning? There seems to be a difference in underlying assumptions between us that is influencing how we think about this.
> I cannot believe I have to "fuzzy peaches" this topic
Sorry for the tangent, but I have never seen this idiom. Can you elaborate on what you mean, and maybe say where you're from if this is a regional thing?
The "fuzzy peaches" or "freeze peaches" idiom translates to "free speech" and became a fairly popular term and discussion point over the last decade in U.S. politics. Especially during the Clinton vs Trump campaigns.
When someone says "fuzzy peaches" or "freeze peaches" it's meant to sarcastically refer to the idea or right of "free speech" being used as a shield against criticism levied at an individual, or that individual/group attempting to absolve themselves of societal effects or consequences of said speech.
It is largely a term used by left-ish folks (of which I am) as a way to say "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" and/or "if the only thing you can say about what you're saying is that you can say it, maybe you shouldn't say it at all"
The idea being that speech in public spaces needs to be constructive and purposeful.
Topically, if you use Google to search for these terms, you get absolutely nothing :^). Though reddit searches do yield plenty of results (among other sites).
And yet, getting frisky (with yourself or others) on a nude beach is typically illegal.
Topfreedom, in places where that is legal, is also seen quite differently than full nudity. Going to a nude beach is an opt-in experience; consent to view fully nude people is implicit in going there. Where nude beaches are uncommon, they are typically very well marked as such.
And, to pick a nit, because I live in a locale where toplessness is equal-opportunity: we enjoy this freedom due to the lack of a law restricting it.
I'm paying the same taxes, yes, but on top of taxes, I'm paying a cut of each (pre-tax) sale to the CC company or payment processing platform (Stripe, for example, charges 2.3% of each transaction). That cut, while it might seem like pennies to a customer (because in a sense, it literally is roughly a quarter for a given $10 charge) but over time and at scale, those cuts really add up.
If my revenue is say, $1m, that's roughly $23k that a CC or payment processor gets right off the bat, so I'm paying taxes on the $1mm but the cut takes a nice hit off my end profits. That $23k would be infinitely more valuable if I could reinvest it in my workforce, my product, my team, or myself.
I'm not a restaurant but I am a food service provider. I wish I could go cash-only but that would restrict who I do business with, which at the stage I'm at, is not really an option.
>If my revenue is say, $1m, that's roughly $23k that a CC or payment processor gets right off the bat, so I'm paying taxes on the $1mm but the cut takes a nice hit off my end profits.
If you are talking U.S. income tax, that is incorrect. You are not paying taxes on $1 million, rather you are paying taxes on $977K since the payment processing fees are tax-deductible.
This guy over here https://youtu.be/BQMIAkt4P48?si=XQY6jLLKFpS4wkzv is always testing fitness / sleep devices and he compares to better machines that are known to more precise. The latest Apple Watches do pretty well overall.
It is an exercise in trolling. The president, Aron D’Souza, is a Peter Thiel buddy, and sounds like somebody who would find bullet points like "Inclusive Language" and "How to come out as enhanced" hilarious in this context.
"The HTTP HEAD method requests the headers that would be returned if the HEAD request's URL was instead requested with the HTTP GET method. ". So it goes against the HTTP spec.
How does it go against the HTTP Spec.
The HEAD method could be autoregistered for all handlers of GET Requests and library makes sure no body is sent (Basically it's a autoregistered middleware that wraps the get handler and overwrites the reponse writer with an empty body.)
Arguably this is more correct that letting the users declare a separate Handler that can neither guarantee the same headers as the the GET Handler not guarantee that the body is not sent the response.
Squatting is a funny thing in many places. In Spain you have 48 hours to make a police report. After that evicting squatters will be a many months long legal process during which you'll need to keep paying all the bills and taxes for your property.
In Belgium, police cannot evict squatters unless they are caught during the act of entering. Lunacy and a veritable nightmare if your property is targeted.
The regulation incentivizes one to actually use the property instead of parking one's money there, so I think it's working as intended.
In order to avoid squatting, put the property to use or hire a security company. Don't expect the state to provide protection for land that's not being put to use.
Do you really want to live in a world where you need to hire security if you want to go on a two-week vacation? I fail to see how the squatting that is described in the article is different from theft.
Do you still call is Mt Rosalie, since that was its original name? 20 years from now it'll be an obscure trivia question. Just like most people already call the neighborhood that used to be Stapleton, named after a KKK member, as Central Park. And it was renamed a couple of years ago, and Central Park is a dumb name...
