813 karma · joined May 31, 2019
No, this is a serious position, and you have to be trolling by being so dismissive of it. Julian calendar, what kind of argument is that? Don't you know we use the Gregorian....
See how that feels? That wasn't very constructive, was it? Try to assume good faith.
Of course it is debated and different in different jurisdictions, as it is common law and not a specific statute. But ambiguity in law means execs lean towards the safe decision. Shareholders can go a long way with a legal threat that never sees trial.
> I'm not collecting any of your data. Now go back and get your music taste judged.
The site obviously is collecting your data. How else would it know your Spotify history? Now, it could say "I'm not storing, selling, or sharing any of your data except to you on your results page," which could be more accurate.
You will be more environmentally friendly if you just don't upgrade from whatever phone you have for a few years. This seems as much of an accounting trick as carbon offsets, which don't really do anything. They could buy a bunch of used smartphones from a reseller market that probably would have been sold anyway, but Fairphone then resells them on the used market. Somehow, this means "100% compensation" for your purchase because they are giving another phone a new life.
What a glaring omission. There are tons of open, freely licensed fonts: https://fontesk.com/license/ofl-gpl/
It's the same trick that pharmaceutical companies use to extend their patents. Find a slightly new use or way that also covers the old use, and bam, exclusivity for another 20 years.
About why this is now an issue if it's existed for decades? When I was a kid, it was easy to find all kinds of illegal stuff on the internet. That doesn't mean it was OK then or now. I don't think fake porn has been that mainstream until recently. There were some high-profile cases that raised the issue in the media. Personally, I believe that it was always a bad thing to photoshop someone's head onto a porn star's body without their consent.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/if-signed-by-governor-cali...
- The compressive strength of a second-rate brick is 70 kg/cm².
- Common building bricks have a compressive strength of 35 kg/cm²
- The compressive strength of sun-dried brick is between 15 and 25 kg/cm².
Source: https://housing.com/news/compressive-strength-of-bricks-mean...
On June 21, after he had finished a draft and incorporated some changes from Adams, Jefferson had a copy delivered to Franklin, with a cover note far more polite than editors generally receive today. "Will Doctor Franklin be so good as to peruse it," he wrote, "and suggest such alterations as his more enlarged view of the subject will dictate?"
Franklin made only a few small changes, but one of them was resounding. Using heavy backslashes, he crossed out the last three words of Jefferson’s phrase, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" and changed it to read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
The concept of "self-evident" truths came less from Jefferson’s favored philosopher, Locke, than from the scientific determinism of Isaac Newton and the analytic empiricism of Franklin’s close friend David Hume. Hume had distinguished between "synthetic" truths that describe matters of fact (such as "London is bigger than Philadelphia" ) and "analytic" truths that are self-evident by virtue of reason and definition. ("The angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees" or "All bachelors are unmarried." ) When he chose the word "sacred," Jefferson had suggested intentionally or unintentionally that the principle in question the equality of men and their endowment by their creator with inalienable rights was an assertion of religion. By changing it to "self-evident," Franklin made it an assertion of rationality.”
Part IX. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.
(2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.
(3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.
[1] https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00...
You can't just drop an extraordinary claim like that without a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the case you're describing.
Do you not see the contradiction? They are minimal because they are a scam. And it isn't that some are legitimate and others are scams. Carbon offsets fundamentally misrepresent the actual costs of carbon. The cost of getting someone to promise not to cut down trees that would have emitted 1T of CO2 if clear-cut and burned in the open air is fundamentally different from the fractional cost of redesigning air travel to not emit 1T of CO2 in the first place.
Think about it: Are there enough trees about to be clear-cut and burned to offset all the other emissions we need to cut? If so, we could just prevent climate change by saving all the forests. We can't. We have to actually reduce emissions by far more than offsets are saving. In the meantime, offsets create incentives for people to actively plan to burn carbon that they otherwise wouldn't have burned, so that they can be paid to not burn it. This doesn't reduce emissions, it is just an accounting trick. It doesn't lead to a net reduction in carbon.
From https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/18/climate/offset-carbon-foo...:
"But the biggest problems are structural, related to something called additionality.
That’s technical jargon for a simple concept: A carbon offset needs to fund reductions that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. If you pay someone to preserve a grove, but they were never actually planning to cut it down, then you’re not offsetting your emissions. And it’s difficult to establish the facts in these cases with the level of confidence required for offset programs to work.
Part of the appeal of carbon offsets is the notion that it’s possible to meaningfully combat climate change while living our lives and structuring our society in the same way we always have. For that reason, some experts see carbon offsets as actively damaging, inasmuch as they give people cover to avoid reducing emissions at the source."