Anyone seen an explanation for this trend of useless and stupid censoring of words?
Anyone seen an explanation for this trend of useless and stupid censoring of words?
For a while I wanted to make observing and ID’ing mosses and lichens my thing on iNataturalist, but it’s too damn hard.
I hope the shutter sound was turned off
Maybe. The people who have always said 30 years were scientists and engineers. Those now saying 5 to 10 years are VC backed startups.
Progress is definitely being made but I’ll believe the optimists when I see the results.
One reason is that he has demonstrated over the past 8 years that he’s not really better at forecasting than others. But the main reason I say that is he’s shown his ass on social media time and time again. I don’t have specifics so can’t really defend my accusation.
Nate Silver is a hack, but agree with everything else you said.
Me: what’s that mean?
Them: age sex and where you’re from ;)
Me: 13/m
Them: do you have a bush yet?
Me: A bush? What do you mean?
Literally my first interaction in a chat room.
Of course, but the percentage of capable zoomers who are actually tech savvy is much smaller than millenials, for the reasons already stated.
Just the other day I witnessed a zoomer grad student who didn’t know how to use a file explorer on his new windows laptop because he had grown up with an iPad and iPhone.
Anyone want to cyber?
Are you 10 years old or just stupid?
This has been a popsci fantasy for a quarter of a century or more. Google tried it and gave up.
It straight up makes up sources and citations.
Land snails also shit out of the same hole they breath through.
I still do, but I used to, too.
Wobbly windows, rotating cube workspace switcher, and a flaming bonanza animation when a windows was closed.
The year was ~2003
You sound more like an agitator trying to sow resentment than someone who actually believes in liberal values.
Shitting on anything except a magical savior that waves a wand and makes the world anew is a delusion, not politics.
Me: hey, some sorely needed common sense reforms got passed. Rural hospitals in a majority of states have the desperately needed federal funds to stay open and people are less likely to die because they cant afford their life saving medicines, great right?
You: fucking idiot, not every problem on the planet has been solved! How dare you celebrate solving just one problem we’ve been fighting for a generation to get fixed!
This comment is proof a certain segment of liberals just can’t be happy.
“just Medicare expansion and lowering prescription drug costs” Just?! Oh you mean just two issues which voters have been demanding for over 2 decades? Just what democrats have tried to accomplish forever but Republicans have blocked?
Political parties are capable of having and achieving multiple policy goals at once. Jesus christ.
Some context from a mod at /r/law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
Selected Applications of the Brandenburg Test The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”
In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
Brandenburg Test:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”