> There is also a parallel legal reality - that people have the right to free speech.
The right to free speech only means you can't be prosecuted for what you say. It does not compel any private entity to distribute everything that you want to say.
> The right to free speech only means you can't be prosecuted for what you say.
It is a much broader protection against government retaliation than just "cannot be prosecuted", but it is a protection against the government, and it includes protection against being forced to endorse and relay others' speech. Compelled speech is the opposite of free speech.
I don't think they should be able to claim "safe harbor" protection (or am I getting that confused with common carrier?) and then get to use censorship however they like. The spirit of safe harbor is that "we're not responsible for what random people post on here". It doesn't seem logically consistent to claim this legal protection but then curtail the content to anyone's personal sensitivities.
Section 230(c)(2)(a) is pretty explicit in allowing moderation.
Just because they are not legally liable for what users post, Congress did not want to prevent platforms from going beyond their minimal legal requirements if they so chose.
The alternative us a law that says "It is unreasonable for us to expect you to perfectly police your users; but we will hold you liable for imperfectly doing so".
Just curious: do you believe in net neutrality? (I think that's the cause of my conflation with "common carrier"). But if censorship is a valid reason to deny service, why can't charter or AT&T say "we dont like what you're sending over our wires, so we're blocking or throttling you" ?
Is it merely the fact that encryption blocks the carrier from knowing what the line is used for? Or said another way, should AT&T have the right to terminate a user's service if they were certain a user was posting, say, white supremacy?
Those are your basic rights: You entered into a contract with the airline, and the airline failed to deliver. Of course you get your money back if the alternative solution is not satisfactory - whether or not the ticket was refundable doesn't even enter into it, as it was the airline that failed to deliver in the first place. That's not stellar service, that's just fulfilling their legal obligations.
I am not sure which airline represent your average experience; but in my experience, almost all airlines will fight to "your death" not to give you anything back. In the times they do (especially European), it's because there is a law that requires them to.
I think the point being made: It was refunded very quickly and without hassle. Other, less scrupulous / ethnical airlines were try more tactics to redirect to worse flight or delay refund (if at all -- "oh, it was a lost in our system").
I'm always so confused by the advice to go to bookstores to meet people. What kind of bookstores do you guys go to where the customers talk with each other?
Being able to start a friendly conversation under circumstances where an average male might fail is a prime sign of date-ability. While humans are very complicated, the general animal rule that males must impress females still exists at some level in some form.
That's a recipe for women to feel creeped out. Even at Meetups women get bugged by men who for lack of a better term lack awareness and communication skills.
And by this I do imply men talking to women, because despite claims to the contrary, it's the accepted norm (and there are always exceptions). That's my experience, it may be different in same sex communities.
There's no great place for people to meet anymore.
Countless surveys have shown that women do want to be approached. And don't forget about the "Brad Pitt vs Stalker" duality that exists for women and dating: They either view you as handsome who can do no wrong (including approaching them at Meetups), or some kind of creep. There is little in-between. Also, women view about 80% of men as unattractive. It is not a normal distribution, as men rate women's attractiveness. The open secret is that you need to approach lots of women on a regular basis in all sorts of different settings. Eventually, you will find luck.
Basically this, the bookstore was a stand in for any type of place that you may frequent and see others frequent.
People react differently to being approached, just like anyone would. If they are just into you it works. If not some are polite and see it as a compliment and just say no. Others will be offended and scoff. Either way no one gets hurt and you just move on.
Eventually you just get lucky with someone who is interested in you back. This is kinda how it was for most of history, so I find it odd people are so against it now. We are social creatures! go out and meet people, if they happen to be mean oh well, that reflects entirely on them.
> Also, women view about 80% of men as unattractive. It is not a normal distribution, as men rate women's attractiveness.
No source for a claim like this, on a forum where it's the norm for even the most mundane things? Please link one, would be interested in having a look at the study.
> At least on OKCupid, women rate 80% of men as below-average attractiveness, while men rate women at right about 50% as below-average and 50% as above-average
is very different from
> Women view about 80% of men as unattractive. It is not a normal distribution, as men rate women's attractiveness.
Pretty confounding to take that sort of a logical leap in a thread that's about the dark patterns, gamification and the highly modified context into which dating apps transform dating inside them.
The same argument (who is it hurting if its notreal and viewed by a singular person?) is commonly used by organizations who would like to see the age of consent lowered / widespread legalization of child pornography.
I don't want to discuss it too much because there's enough nuance here for people to hang you with no matter what you say, but, a brief parable: I spent exactly 1 sentence pointing out to someone you could make porn with Stable Diffusion and they started hosting a SD instance for deep fakes in our non-technologist community with girls in it, and also started what I still think of as a "porn dungeon" chat room.
It was immensely frustrating trying to verbalize why this was antisocial and why there was a set of people who were legitimately upset by it. They never really understood fully.
But I'm sure they had moment with the Taylor Swift deepfake stuff from last week.
There's isn't really a 100% logical Spock reason why it's bad, other than other humans find it deeply distasteful.
It's a bit larger, more in the range of the 777 than the 787.
Roughly, it used to be A330 vs 767 and A340 vs 777, the A330 and the 777 were the winners in these segments. The 787 was built to beat the A330, and it did, and the A350 was built to beat the 777, and it might.
Airbus reacted to the 787 with a re-engined A330, the A330neo, which was not a great success, but not a total flop. Boeing re-engined and enlarged the 777 to create the 777X, whose smaller variant positioned against the A350 is a slow seller, but whose larger variant, which has no direct competitor, has seen some sales - if Boeing manages to get it out of the door, the program is again hugely delayed and over budget.
Saw the beast in person in Kraków. Was inspired enough to dedicate a poem to it:
O the forgotten craft of yore!
To darkest arts I turn once more.
With new and oldest runes combined,
I'll birth the only of its kind:
Four-winged beast from depth of hell
By breath of fire be propel'd!
The cyclops eye, rise in my field!
With venom be your biceps filled!
From skies you'll pour death and gore—
I summon thee, o BELPHEGOR!
...Thus quoth der Polen:
