Just as fast as a car if you run as fast as a car.

Umm … That AI generated hentai on the page of the same article, though … Do the editors have any self-awareness? Reminds me of the time an admin decided the best course of action to call out CSAM was to directly link to the source.

The image depicts mature women, not children.

I think it is called the network effect. People are still using Twitter because the messages they want to see are being posted there, and those messages are being posted there because that’s where the audience is. So, basically, people are locked in.

This also means that any loss in user count has a double effect, as not only users are lost, but the utility of the service for the remaining users decreases. So, what I’m saying is, if Elon continues this way, at some point there will be a large exodus of users from Twitter, as each loss of users reduces the utility of Twitter further, triggering a chain reaction.

Of course, we can’t know when that happens, and since we’re both on Lemmy, we’ve already self-selected as people with little tolerance for enshittification.

I’d probably take this suggestion, just to see where its going with this. (I know there’s no design behind these suggestions, but it’s funny).

How restrictive do you want to be with the accounts? If you’re too restrictive, there won’t be enough users. If you’re not restrictive enough, the data will be used for AI training.

If you have a goose that lays golden eggs, butchering it for feathers is a poor move.

"This world needs no savior,

just a headsman to cut her down".

“Erscheine!” (2008) By Eisregen, translated from German.

That’s because there’s a review count requirement for both the extremely good and the extremely negative level. So you can’t buy your own game, review it, and have it be overwhelmingly positive because the only review is positive. Thing is, bad games tend to not get bought by many people, so overwhelmingly negative is rare. So yes, mixed reviews are already damming.

Funny is allowed. But if funny is not funny, then it is nothing. And they were not funny.

I’m sort of wondering how difficult it is to stage a convincing suicide vs a convincing accident, and I think the latter might be easier.

Possibly, though I’d wait until the scandal has blown over before killing the whistleblower. He did the most damage when he decided to reveal information, and with the Boeing plane related incidents, I doubt that the prosecution’s case would fall apart without him, so why should there be a rush with killing him?

Well, the problem I see with making a murder look like a suicide is that it can be automatically suspicious if the victim said something along the lines of “if I die it wasn’t suicide”. Probably even if there was video evidence of it being legit. Why not make the death look like an accident instead? I’ve never murdered somebody, but I don’t think making the death look like an accident is that much more difficult than making it look like a suicide.

The question is ‘cui bono’. I don’t think Boeing does at this point in time. The death makes it worse for them PR wise. So, my theory, it was Airbus or another Boeing competitor.

The only thing a malicious host can do is to omit information, which can be mitigated simply by using more than one host, which is still cheaper than using a blockchain. You could have each signature include the previous one, which will allow anybody to verify that they have a complete prefix of the history. Host them on, say Imgur and Imgchest, and it would even be free, whereas hosting it on say the ethereum blockchain would cost about 10$ per image (Based on this: https://etherscan.io/gastracker#costTxAction. I’m lowballing my estimate. If its too high, please tell me by how much, and how you arrived at your number.)

In other words, even in the best case scenario, using the blockchain would only provide negligible benefits compared to much cheaper alternatives.

Thank you.

The overturning of Roe vs Wade, which was an almost 50 year old precedent, is an example of the supreme court acting in a partisan manner. Since the premise is that the current supreme court has never acted in a partisan manner, the counterexample refutes the premise. And if the premise of an argument is not true, then the argument doesn’t support the thesis. So, the guy you cited is also wrong.

Edit: Turns out the rebuttal you linked is a reply to a different, albeit identically worded post. And in this context, Shalafil didn’t use the term ‘never’ in their premise, meaning that in that context, a single counterexample actually isn’t enough to disprove the premise. So you’re right on this one. Sorta annoying that these two clash several times in this discussion.

How many appeals do they get currently? How many should they get? You said they typically don’t appeal because they are innocent, so what about the atypical cases where they are innocent?

How?

Afraid_of_zombies provided a counterexample to one of your theses, which you failed to debunk.

Most authoritarian regimes generate revenue that can be distributed among the people who keep the regime going. If you kill the dictator, you would have to take over the operations to keep the money flowing. However, if there’s a total breakdown of society, then the dictator has a big treasury, but no income. So the guards have a choice between either getting a small cut of the treasury each month, or killing the dictator/billionaire, and taking all of the treasury for themselves.