We call that a conviction and a system of law for this. We should use it. I don’t think private corporations that are monopolies should decide who can speak and who cannot. Obviously they can protect their business, but then they shouldn’t be allowed to be universally dominant in a technology category like video.
Oh I’m sorry I wasn’t even thinking about legacy media on that one.
I meant video as in YouTube is UGC video as a content type as they as so market dominant.
The evidence against him is compelling. I just worry that this kind of deplatforming is becoming so normalized I can’t imagine it not becoming a ready political weapon and having a great many unintended concequences.
I'm having trouble parsing who you think is the wronged party here, but to be clear this fire official was going around bear spraying random innocuous homeless people before one of his victims fought back and beat him up.
Just in the interests of accuracy, he's a former fire commissioner. He resigned after 4 months in the job ~10 years ago following his arrest on domestic violence charges.
The message pretty clearly states that the visible presence of the homeless is a crime against the OP that leads to vigilantism (i.e., attacks on the homeless). This kind of eliminationist rhetoric is common on this site.
Anything invoicing trans people like me, and especially anything involving families with trans kids.
It's not by accident that everyone in my immediate social circle carries a weapon of some kind now. The existential threat from both the state and other citizens grows daily.
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, this forum looks to attract a certain kind of people, and those people find it easy to hide uncouth comments under the guise of "curious discussion".
It doesn't help that moderation is almost non-existent, aside from when VC's get put under blast, or when . Asking for sources for ridiculous comments (eg: Dropbox laid off people in order of performance) gets flagged, then removed, but off-topic humor in bad taste remains.
Not GP but I'll bite: the guilty party is 100% the bear sprayer, whoever it may be (commissioner or not).
But breakdown of law, order and general societal cohesion invites this kind of behaviour. It's still the perpetrator's fault, but conditions are made so that these people are more likely to lash out.
There seems to be a big uptick in the number of people who like to scold others for their family planning choices, especially women, and especially for choosing to delay beyond some particular threshold the scolder takes to be ideal (often representative of some imagined sepia toned traditional time). The truth is if you're reasonably affluent nearly all of these supposed downsides can be mitigated and are usually preferable to trying to take care of kids on a shoestring budget while still building a professional and economic foundation.
Incorrect. Many think the downsides can be mitigated but the fact is that many women over 30, and especially over 35 will struggle with infertility. Methods like IVF may work but you’re often signing up for a year of stress and anxiety for every child you want. Methods like egg freezing fail far more than people think, and then you’re left with an empty family for the remaining 40 years of your life. It’s a bleak situation and I think people should stop putting it off. At the very least, they should put in some serious thought before they’re 30 to understand their options.
My comment was not intended to scold anyone. Just an opinion based on experience of having to take care of a couple kids, and watching my dad neglect his kids to take care of his excessively old dad.
> usually preferable to trying to take care of kids on a shoestring budget while still building a professional and economic foundation.
Which does not apply to the person deciding to lease space on a cruise boat for 12 years for a few hundred thousand dollars.
Jules Siegel, Pynchon's college friend and roommate, once wrote that "...you have to accept the fact that Tom’s grasp of things that he glibly sets down as if he were a master of the material is usually quite superficial, based on reading anything from, say, Bible Comics to learned journals. This is not a criticism, but a description."
Of course, Siegel was maybe not the most reliable informant, given that Pynchon also famously slept with his wife.
We can call it PynchonNotPynchon.ai After prefs and dilution, as founder you can probably expect end up with about 3-5%.
The spin-off of PynchonOrNot.io, where GPT ranks them on a scale of not-Pynchon to very Pynchon indeed - could do very well, given the precedents. I would even bet more people would want to know if the internet thought they were Pynchon or not than hot or not.
Pynchon hired post-docs to research the dotcom bubble and cultural ephemera of the time for BLeeding Edge. Many other writers employ researchers for their writing as well, James Ellroy comes to mind. It's a kind of open secret in the publishing industry. Of course, writers and their publishers alike would prefer if readers had no idea of this.
It's not more a secret or shameful than a Hollywood director paying consultants in various aspects (from slang, history and politics to fashion, interior design, and cars) to make his mafia movie more historically accurate
That seems to track with some of the more critical reviews of Gravity’s Rainbow I read recently. I have never read one of his books and was considering that one, but I’m not a huge fan of sprawling novels.
There is zero evidence that Joseph Kennedy was ever involved in bootlegging except the much, much later claims of various extremely unreliable mafia figures.
Interesting, had always heard this rumor. From doing some reading it looks like he actually made his money in insider trading and stock market manipulation
It remains very funny that he paid forty-five billion dollars for the privilege of humiliating himself daily with these petulant temper-tantrums. Amazing bit.
To note, he didn't pay the whole forty-five billion dollars, investment banks have a part of that and are also eating dirt. I have no sympathy for them either, but it brings more flavors to the whole thing.
Secured as debt against his Tesla shares as collateral, which with the slide, means he has to put up more Tesla shares, causing a very nasty snowball effect
That’s not true. Most of the debt was leveraged against Twitter, it’s a classic LBO.
The investment banks have been attempting to change that to a margin loan against TSLA shares, because of course they are. They are holding effectively unsellable debt now.
IFAIK the loans are secured by Twitter equity. Trouble is the loans add up to more than what Twitter is worth. The banks will have to write down the value of those loans. But the equity investors, including Elon, will get what scraps, if any, are left after creditors get paid.
Musk is still on the hook for the loans whether Twitter goes under or not. The danger they face is if Musk loses enough to not be able to cover the loans personally.
If you go out just a little bit not everyone hates him. Personally I think he hasn’t don’t anything overt yet. So he banned a few journalists, do you know why? No right? So why judge so early?
Given that the rule didn’t exist when Elon originally banned @ElonJet?
I’d suggest that you care about the fact that Elon will ban anyone he wants banned, and make up a justification post-facto. If you don’t care who gets banned from Twitter, then I retract my suggestion.
Elon is pulling the wool to incite his mob. He states people are doxxing his real-time location. The only people he’s banning are those that reference publicly available FAA flight data. I even think the owner of the Twitter account put the tweet on a time delay. Far from the truth.
