|
? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
44 | 35.20% |
| No |
|
81 | 64.80% |
| Total: | 125 votes | ||
|
Spoggerific posted:https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...nown-study-says That's interesting cause I was the sickest I've ever been in my life for the last two weeks of December, but have always written off any possibility it was COVID because of the date. Still probably wasn't but it is crazy how much it hits all the right marks: got better for a couple days before getting way way worse, really hard time breathing at the worst point, and the worst fatigue I've ever felt. I even called my parents in a panic at one point and made them drive half-way across the state because I was alone with my 2 year old and thought I was going to lose consciousness or need to call 911. It was the first time being sick ever made me feel scared. Like I've been on a 4-man SKT running a 102 fever with the medic freaking out about whether he had to call in a bird or if I'd be able to walk out before the sun came up and this was on a whole other level (see also: why you don't take someone running a 100 degree fever on a loving SKT in late November just because an E6 is too important to fill in for a specialist machine gunner) Also where I live/work/go to school and my family situation if there was any virus in MA in Dec it's not implausible for me to have been exposed. Still probably not but it feels nuts.
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Fallom posted:I think the conservation of angular momentum would tend to slow down rotation if the atmosphere grew hotter and spread out further Space is frictionless, momentum should be conserved indefinitely unless something steals it (like the moon's gravity).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
Fallom posted:Right which is why it would be conserved and rotation would slow down if the earth grew bigger Yes, you're correct, I misread your post. There's a lot more going on than the ice skater analogy though, so I don't think it would be that simple.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2020 15:02
|
|
|
Flying_Crab posted:The consequences of someone running a light as a 200lb bicycle/rider at 12mph vs a 4,000 pound vehicle going 30-50mph are not in any way comparable. Also a lot of lights detect cars in order to change the signal, a bicycle usually will not trip that function and thus the bike is stuck there. If there is basically no traffic I slow at intersections to probably 5mph, if it's clear hell yeah I run the light (this is actually becoming legal in a lot of places, e.g. the "Idaho stop"). No, gently caress you, if you want to use the road you obey the rules of the road. You want to claim the right of way of a car you follow the rules that come with it. I can't count the number of times I've almost dumped my motorcycle trying to avoid pasting some gently caress who decided to run a red light at full speed in Boston because they didn't see me; it's like a weekly event during the summer. "There's no one coming so I went" is just as dumb as an excuse as if a motorist did it. I don't care if it's legal in another state, it's not legal here and the rest of the people on the road are acting and reacting with the expectation other people are going to follow rules. Yeah oh boy that car had to slam on his breaks big deal, but the motorcyclist behind that car doesn't have four wheels and can't slam on their brakes in a corner without highsiding into the concrete. Lane splitting is legal in CA, it doesn't mean I can do it in Boston. That's not even getting into the assholes who think they have right-of-way when swerving across four lanes of traffic because they think a crosswalk means they can make an unannounced left turn at full speed and suddenly they're a pedestrian as long some of their cornering line brushes the crosswalk. Don't get me wrong, Motorists are 100x more dangerous and in general complete morons. But that's the rub: generally motorists are morons, and running me over by being oblivious is way more predictable and avoidable, and I generally get embarrassment and apology from drivers who almost hit me (and the occasional dipshit in a BMW who equally thinks the rules don't apply to him can be spotted a mile away and watched/avoided), cyclists just flip you off or yell at you as if they have the right to do whatever the gently caress they want (if they even slow down) and it's a special kind of infuriating. See also: "the bike lane isn't good enough condition to ride fast so I'll ride on the sidewalk" excuses. I don't ride my motorcycle down the bike lane when the road has pot holes, you don't get to ride on the sidewalk. It's this general culture of "well I can do whatever the gently caress I want if I think I have a good reason, and gently caress you for asking" that makes people lose their mind about cyclists.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:If you want to be more accurate, motorists are closer to 35,000+ times more deadly than bicyclists general. Let me rephrase that: motorists being a bigger problem doesn't make this sort of behavior not assholish.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ask the MIT professor, but its worth noting that Israel's and the US's violent attempts have done nothing more than provide minor delays versus the Iran Negotiations which had measurable and fast acting effects. If you read the rest of the tweets he is taking the position the strike on the Iraqi reactor didn't cause a delay because the reactor was terrible for producing weapons-grade material and Saddam believing it would work was loving up their program. Which is a rather specific mechanism to extrapolate as evidence of what the effect on Iran's program would be. I'm sure there's a more nuanced arguement to be made there but 280 characters isn't a medium that allows for that and you're reading a lot of nonexistent detail into his tweets in order to avoid having to support very specific arguments that you are making (that he's not) by hiding behind his authority as an expert. Unless you have more material from him that I'm not seeing in that thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
It also appears that this isn't evidence of a clandestine program. Iran declared the site to the IAEA and seems to be complying with inspection requirements. They just moved it underground.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
MazelTovCocktail posted:Oh okay then that is very different, I thought he or another kid was riding in the car with him. Hence my comments on collateral damage. Yeah I mean I can't understand the military utility or logic in whacking him. No, you got it mostly right. The kid was riding in a car with a member of AQ leadership who was the target of the strike. He was collateral damage in that strike not in the strike that killed his father.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Are you arguing that white flight hasn't been a defining feature of US suburbanization since the 1950s, with a big chunk of public money paving the way for this process? Or that public transport infrastructure spending hasn't been racially motivated for decades? Or that most pickup trucks aren't purchased for showing off? Just to be clear what part you disagree with. Yeah, it was a defining feature of US suburbanization starting in the 50s. But the trend has spent the last generation reversing itself as those people's kids moved back and priced all the minorities out of the areas with good public transit connections.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2020 15:15
|
|
|
This is the text of the bill, it does not affect twitch streamers:quote:22 SEC. 211. UNAUTHORIZED STREAMING.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Midjack posted:You’re gonna see some poo poo with “commercially significant purpose” and “intentionally marketed” for starters. No you won't. These aren't random words chosen because they sound good; "commercially significant purpose" is a legal term of art that already appears in title 17, and for that matter is harmonized with the language governing EU copyright protections. It's not some jump ball for anyone to make a clever arguement.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Publicly performing works like say playing a video game or performing a song without the express written permission of the publisher? Sure, but 1) that's one component of a compound statement that itself is part of an "and" statement that requires both conditions be met, and 2) that term is explicitly defined in the text of the law as being defined by the exclusive use rights defined by title 17. Title 17 defines criminal copyright infringement with identical language and title 18 sets the penalty for such as identical for what is in the text of this bill. There is no way of interpreting the new law as criminalizing twitch streamers without also interpreting the existing, less strict definition provided by title 17 as also criminalizing twitch streamers. i.e. There is nothing in the new bill that changes anything for twitch streamers, either streaming was already a felony or this bill doesn't apply to them. There's nothing in that text that can be interpreted to extend the law to cover streamers without first successfully making the argument they're committing criminal copyright infringement under the existing title 17 language (which carries the exact same penalty). The text looks almost literally copy/paste from the existing law with some additional bits meant close loopholes the people streaming NFL games were using to get around enforcement. Midjack posted:When you have Disney lawyer money (20 billion in cash reserves last I looked) everything is up for grabs. If nothing matters because money>law then who cares about the bill, and like I noted above the legal arguments you're indicating will be stretched are easier to fit into the existing law.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Most people can't afford legal services that aren't attached to a major transfer in wealth. Suggesting that your interpretation of the text is a final determination is as disingenuous as the idea that disney can do whatever they want. No, it's not, because as I already said, the relevant text doesn't just mirror the existing statute, it explicitly defines itself as being controlled by the existing statute. So, like I already said, if this text applies to streamers, than the existing statute already criminalizes streaming on twitch. In that case this bill still doesn't apply because it's targeting a different aspect of the value stream, twitch itself (the original law would). This isn't an interpretation of legal text, it applies no matter how you interpret the controlling language, the part of the text being pointed to as making twitch a felony is already in the text of the existing law. The passing of this bill's chilling effect on streamers will be insignificant compared the chilling effect caused by the misinformation being spread about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Yeah and factually innocent people don't go to jail lol Post some sources sources or shut up with this "some people say" poo poo. Here I'll start with the EFF, who's I think is fair to call the leading authority opposing this bill. Of note they actually didn't even bother putting out a press release for the felony streaming bill, they just tacked a throwaway paragraph in their press release opposing the CASE act, which actually does threaten to have a chilling effect on streamers but isn't the subject of twitter hot takes because jurisdiction of copyright adjudication isn't as sexy as bullshit about how streaming on twitch is now a felony. Electronic Frontier Foundation posted:The relief bill also included an altered version of a felony streaming bill that is, thankfully, not as destructive as it could have been. While the legislation as written is troubling, an earlier version would have been even more dangerous, targeting not only large-scale, for-profit streaming services, but everyday users as well. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/case-act-hidden-coronavirus-relief-bill-just-beginning-next-copyright-battle
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Read the CASE act in its entirety, and it basically says, "If you have someone raise a claim against you, you have 30 days to cease the infringing activity (claimant can still seek damages against you, even if you stop, for already committed activity, up to 30,000 USD), or lawyer up, try to fight it, and if you lose, you have to pay out up to 30,000 USD, on top of legal fees. The person being served has no option to counterclaim or seek dismissal without involving legal counsel. They have to lawyer up and pray that they win their legal case. Good news is if you can drag it out for 3 years without losing your case, it gets dismissed! (you're still paying 3 years of laywer's fees). It's all small claims court though so nobody's going to jail over it, they'll absolutely be financially ruined though. Yeah I corrected the stuff about twitch streamers being felons now, I never defended the CASE act. In the post you referenced above I even complained about the dumb felony controversy taking attention from the CASE act.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:As a local, good. gently caress 'em. Little late on this but fuuuck, I haven't been to DC in years but that place was great.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2020 15:54
|
|