weeblewobble

It's not an arbitrary rule, it's spelled out in their Terms of Servoce

For the record Babylon Bee is not banned, they can unlock their account any time by deleting a Tweet that jokingly gives a "man of the year award" to a real individual transwoman by name.

If TWTR holders want to trade for TSLA they can simply do it on the open market

He could, but if TSLA goes down and he gets a margin call things could get ugly

Likely not a consumer class drone/quadcopter like what you're picturing, but a combat drone (basically a small airplane) like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_TB2

Why would you assume that? If Elon buys twitter and starts banning everyone with pronouns in their bio I think that would be bad and stupid but it wouldn't be a free speech issue. People would just go elsewhere. Everything would be fine.

John Leguizamo used it at the Oscars the other night

10,000 enterprise windows licenses minimum... that's a big customer

When arguing about Critical Race Theory it's useful to keep in mind this quote from the person (Christopher Rufo) who brought the term to mainstream prominence over the past year or so:

“We have successfully frozen their brand ‘critical race theory’ into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category."

The whole purpose of this phrase as used by the Bari Weiss types is to be non-specific, hard to pin down, to mean different things to different people. In other words, to make productive conversation or debate impossible.

Can someone explain to me why writing an article condemning people for using a word to describe other people is not also part of the war on free speech? This whole debate has a real snake-eating-its-tail aspect to it that I find completely exhausting.

I'm a little confused. You're complaining about how "the media handled this coverage" but your specific complaints seems to be about jokes made by Twitter users. Who exactly is "the media" here?

yes, I'll +1 this. The Amazon Bookstore at U Village is (was?) great. Super helpful staff, roomy, good curations/recommendations, and way way cheaper than independent bookstores. I'll miss it

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any references to any specific incidences or examples of a person having their accounts frozen for simply donating to the protest. Can anyone provide a reliable source of this happening? Since it's the whole point of the alarmism in the article it seems an important thing to establish.

This article https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2022/02/21/convoy-protesters-b... isn't quite a debunking but certainly throws some cold water on this claim. Although it's not really explicitly claimed in the article that this is actually happening, just strongly implied. I wonder if that is intentional.

It's a few years out from being an issue for me, but I'm planning to rely on Apple's ScreenTime and parental controls to take care of this issue for me. My thinking is that having the enforcement be automatic and passive will lead to less conflict.

Anyone have any experience with this? Pros and cons?

The official Postdam Declaration (allied surrender terms) didn't mention imperial sovereignty one way or the other, but it appears the Emperor considered it to have been agreed upon prior to the "unconditional" surrender

Some more color, from Wikipedia:

"The Japanese cabinet considered the Allied response, and Suzuki argued that they must reject it and insist on an explicit guarantee for the imperial system. Anami returned to his position that there be no occupation of Japan. Afterward, Tōgō told Suzuki that there was no hope of getting better terms, and Kido conveyed the Emperor's will that Japan surrender. [...]

That day, Hirohito informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai (imperial sovereignty) could not be preserved. The Emperor simply replied "of course.""

you yourself brought him up as someone to emulate if we want to fight racial discord. it seems to me that the efficacy of his methods are relevant to someone evaluating your claims.

you say "let's see the stats"-- I agree, I'd like to see them. I'm skeptical. The stories in the article I linked (that racists he "converted" are actually using him as a shield while laughing at him in private) directly contradict your point. Maybe those stories are wrong. I'm open minded to that. But you and the wikipedia article you linked certainly haven't convinced me. When I say his story as told by you is "just-so", what I mean is that it's reductive, incurious, inch-deep.

"Candour" is an odd way to describe stenographical repetition of the same blurbs he uses to get booked as a paid speaker.

There's a real telling moment where he takes the time to straighten a klansman's white hood. People who are reading this comment are probably wondering if I'm joking right now. I encourage you to look into it

Some more context on Mr. Davis in this interesting article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-curious-case-of-daryl-davi...

The efficacy of his approach is worth investigating beyond the just-so descriptives used in your comment and the wikipedia article. Many of the people he claims to have converted are still avowed racists and klansmen.

No idea what you're talking about, not interested in debating efficacy of vaccines on here, just pushing back on the idea that calling Joe Rogan anti-vaxx is an "outright lie"

This is a bit of kitchen sink argument-- it was a long time ago! young people actually don't need the vaccine! he's just sharing his perspective! British people couldn't get vaccinated in April!

None of which addresses the claim in OP that people calling Joe Rogan "anti-vaxx" are "outright lying".

It is anti-vaccine to encourage young people not to get vaccinated. Simple as that.

“If you’re, like, 21 years old, and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go ‘No,’” - Joe Rogan, 4/23/21

I think when you learn your brain creates symbols -- neural pathways corresponding to real world objects or concepts, with further pathways linking together related symbols. One of these symbols corresponds to the system itself, a self-reference. That's the "inner eye", and it wouldn't make sense for it to be in someone else's head because then it wouldn't be self-referential.

Open web, decentralization, privacy/tracking, advertising in general, right to repair, walled gardens, Google shutting down projects. Just off the top of my head, these are a bunch of topics on which HN threads take the form of advocacy rather than discussion or curiosity.

Amazon is getting ridiculous. I get an email from them almost every day

I think NYT cloning wordle would have had a huge backlash. Lots of bad PR, a wave of protest cancellations, etc. If they wanted Wordle in the app this was the best way to do it.

The Button was pretty cool. I really love the UX on Wordle. Can't really explain why but it's just so pleasant to use.

are you really sorry?

Slavery was legally abolished in the US only after secession and in the midst of a total war between the Confederacy and the US. Since it was total war, the US had no enforcement capability in the South short of military conquest. At that point the South were in a very poor negotiating position.

Maybe, but you'd think if you spent 10 years steadily burning goodwill you'd eventually run out of it

I've been reading people on HN talk about how Google is burning their goodwill and there will be Very Serious Consequences for a literal decade. Over that time Google stock price has gone up 10x.

perhaps! I'm not an expert on this topic, just pointing out that the article everyone is freaking out about is pretty mild and seems to me firmly within the boundaries of acceptable speech