SNL had a fun sketch about this 12 years ago.

Oh you can remember which one is which by remembering that they have a university named USC.

Haiti’s gonna hate hate hate

why wouldn’t I use my platform to share those beliefs?

I think it’s perfectly valid to say “the system that gave me this platform is unfair and I shouldn’t have benefited from it to the degree that I have, but I have the platform now so I’m going to use it for good.”

For the U.S. at least:

With condos, there’s a condo association that owns all the common areas. Then the association itself is owned by the owners of the units, and the management is elected by the owners.

With co-ops, the unit owners directly own the common areas in common, and the management is also elected by the owners.

Functionally speaking they’re very similar, and co-ops tend to exist in places where this legal structure predates the invention of homeowner associations (basically New York).

Prosecutors are generally somewhat accommodating of victim/witness preferences, because being subpoenaed to testify in open court can be intimidating in even low profile cases. And forcing a person to testify against their will generally isn’t a good trial strategy for winning cases.

Anywhere strangers tend to be around each other long enough to where small talk might be a welcome distraction: waiting in lines for something, sitting at a community table or bar/counter with mixed groups (especially while waiting for the rest of your respective friend groups to show up), sitting next to each other at a public event like live sports or a concert with downtime, volunteer events where you might be set up next to strangers doing the same thing, etc.

It’s easier when there’s a natural end to the interaction (your turn in line, the start of the sporting event), too.

Smartphones and headphones have made it harder, but there are still opportunities when people are bored and sitting around.

The escalation of Starlink not complying comes from that, not the other way around.

I’ve looked closer (at other articles, too). You’re right - the freezing of the SpaceX accounts came from the same order that ordered that Twitter be blocked, and before SpaceX announced it would refuse to comply.

The proper thing to do is to recognize the legally distinct personhood of SpaceX, which isn’t part of Twitter, even if Twitter/X itself is wrong on the law.

The order to block Twitter went to all Brazilian ISPs, and Starlink is the only one that didn’t comply on Saturday. So the escalation stems from the disregard of an order that everyone was required to obey, but the intertwined nature of both companies being controlled by Musk is both part of the reason why SpaceX would even consider not complying with local law in a country it operates in, and why the Brazilian courts seem to be willing to aggressively enforce their own orders.

Edit: I’m convinced. This comment as originally written presented the facts out of order.

Why are you sticking with a specific spectrum? You made it hard to read in service of a requirement that doesn’t make any sense.

There’s that one game that censored “Nasser” to “N***er” which made it much worse.

I think you’re right. The line blurring between corporate sponsorship and community support is pretty difficult to determine. If someone wants to build a community around a particular video game or movie or television show, of course the corporation that publishes it benefits from a bunch of positive discussion about it. But at the same time, that corporate-owned product is part of our shared culture, and a legitimate topic to discuss in a forum like this.

And it’s not even necessarily pure corporate stuff, either. There are nonprofit and trade and governmental organizations that rely on advertising for public messaging: a tourism board promoting their location as a good vacation spot, an agricultural trade group promoting recipes using their specific product, a government health department drive encouraging vaccinations, etc. They pay for ads through conventional outlets while also promoting their interests on social media.

It’s just an ecosystem. We should be aware that there are those who would seek to influence us here, whether for money or politics or other motivation, and navigate these spaces with that in mind.

something horrible happening to women & children

The closest I’ve seen to genuine happiness is the video of him laughing with Jeffrey Epstein, so yeah, that checks out.

Each change is less costly to store than each comment, and the system processes millions of comments per day.

Kicking off the list with Whitewater, a fraud where the Clintons were victims, shows just how persistent these beliefs are.

When the machine costs 350 million euros, what’s a few hundred thousand in saved shipping costs?

Film it and name it “Good Bye, Putin!”

That’s confusing cause and effect. Howard Dean’s speech was supposed to be a concession speech after losing the only early primary/caucus he was trying to win. He poured in all of his resources in the hopes of winning Iowa, underperformed expectations against a backdrop of dropping in the polls for weeks, and coming in third (with no real prospects for New Hampshire or South Carolina) basically made it impossible for him to have the volunteers, money, or press coverage to survive into the next stage of competing in bigger states with primaries clumped up together.

He showed everyone his plan of winning Iowa or going home, lost Iowa, and then gave some kind of rallying speech as if he had a plan to recover from that loss. He never did, and it wasn’t the scream that killed his campaign. His campaign was dead before the scream happened. It’s just that the scream was a particularly memorable way for a campaign to die.

Because every single president does the same exact thing.

What are you talking about?

Biden got about as much as he could get through a Republican controlled House and a filibustering Senate: a major COVID relief bill, a major infrastructure bill, and a major environmental reform bill.

Trump did a shitload in his one term:

• Replaced 3 Supreme Court justices and a lot of lower court judges who went on to overturn Roe v. Wade and Chevron, deliver a shitload of conservative decisions, and block a bunch of Biden executive actions (including student loan forgiveness, all sorts of COVID policies, and a bunch of economic regulations).
• Major tax cuts in 2017 for corporations and high earners
• Withdrew from the Paris accords and rolled back a lot of Obama EPA regs
• Made shifts towards privatization of k-12 education, including towards religious private schools.

Obama signed a bunch of stuff into law his first two years:

• Obamacare
• Universal healthcare for children under S-CHIP
• Student loan reform, creating public service loan forgiveness and much better repayment plans while cutting out private lenders who took all the upside with none of the downside.
• Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
• Repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
• Passed Dodd Frank, including the creation of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
• School lunch reform

Bush campaigned on tax cuts and got them, and then got a bunch of other stuff in from his first term related to 9/11 and the aftermath: The Patriot Act, authorization for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

If anything, presidents are far less effective their second term than their first term.

One time pads are perfect encryption, but the problem is that the key length needs to be longer than the message length. So if you have the ability to get the symmetric key to the recipient securely, then you had the ability to get the whole message to the recipient securely.