𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

also giving infants 70 shots is insane

Yoi’re right, letting them get infected with life-threatening diseases with as little protection as possible is much more responsible.

Only thing this is benefiting is big pharma, they don’t make money off of healthy people.

This has always been a stupid argument. Imagine two pharmaceutical companies, A and B. A develops a treatment that treats but doesn’t cure a patient. B develops a more expensive treatment, but it completely cures a patient.

Which company would you want to be a customer of? Obviously B, they can cure you. Pharmaceutical companies are financially incentivised to cure rather than treat.

Now imagine A also tries to develop a cure. The only was they can compete is by making the cure cheaper, safer or more effective.

Being the only one with a cure means you can also ask higher prices, as you’ve essentially monopolised a disease.

This is also self-evident from all the diseases that we’ve found cures for in the last few decades. Even cancer is becoming less and less of a death sentence.

RFK is right

He’s wrong.

Nothing lasts forever. But for now, it’s decent enough.

Unlikely. In the age of globalism, it’s much more likely that manufacturing will leave the US to dodge counter-tariffs. The combined markets of Europe and Asia is for most products larger than the US market, and that trend is only likely to increase in the future as Asia develops. Manufacturers know making stuff in Asia is just cheaper, and that American consumers are more likely to go into debt to buy stuff than other consumers. They also know that these tariffs are unlikely to last for long, because if the US takes the expected economic hit here then it becomes less likely that Trump/the GOP remains in control (eg midterms flip control back to the democrats).

Not much reason to move factories to the US, which is wildly expensive, when taking the hit and waiting it out is ultimately most likely cheaper.

I’m surprised to hear GIMP crashed on you, I don’t think I’ve ever had it crash on me.

LinEUx

Am I sure about what? That men vastly outnumber women when it comes to commiting rape/sexual assault/abuse? Umm… Yeah?

No I was referring to the publicity thing. When a man does it it’s not as big of a news story vs when a woman does it, as I believe to be anecdotally evidenced by the news stories I mentioned.

You sure? I remember reading a string of articles along the lines of “female teacher sentenced for sex with boy in her class”, which rather disgustingly tended to attract a lot of “nice” and “I wish I was the boy” like comments.

Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?

Did you completely fail to read the part “except where authorized”? That bit of legalese is a blanket “you can’t use this software in a way we don’t want to”.

You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything

Ah, you just have zero clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.

Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.

Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.

But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It’s legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).

In legalese here, the “downloading” specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that’s not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.

except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service

Can you read?

No, that’s “Download to file” or “Download and save”. Just because some people like to refer to downloading and saving as just “downloading”, doesn’t mean that that magically now means that. You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.

The CS definition has never directly implied that downloading must also store the received data.

Would they? The XZ utils backdoor was only discovered by what can only be described as an insanely attentive developer who happened to be testing something unrelated and who happened to notice a small increase in the startup time of the library, and was curious enough to go and figure out why.

Open does not mean “can’t be backdoored”.

For example your second source says “downloaded over the internet” and since YouTube doesn’t allow you to download videos, YT videos would be omitted from that definition.

Everything on the internet is “downloaded” to your device, otherwise you can’t view it. It just means receiving data from a remote server.

I don’t know, but the critics won’t be the ones to have to do so. They can point towards comments like yours suggesting that non-Jewish people should become members to begin claiming it’s a “fake” Jewish org. This sows distrust in the organisation.

At least, that is what I think the other commenter meant. I don’t care who becomes a member myself.

If a lot of non-Jewish people become members, critics could argue that the organisation isn’t really “Jewish” voices for peace.

Nintendo has their own emulators for running these games on newer consoles.

In general, you should pay for content that you’re going to use commercially

Sure, but merely linking to a page isn’t reusing the content. If said content was being embedded, rehashed or otherwise shown then a compensation would be fair. But merely linking to a page should absolutely be free. That’s a massively important cornerstone of the internet that shouldn’t be compromised on.

Linking directs traffic which can be monetized by the website itself, it shouldn’t require additional fees on top.

Yes, but at least there they still use “Earth time”, just slowed down. For the moon it gets a little bit more complicated I guess.

Time moves at a different speed due to the moon’s reduced gravity. It’s not just the length of a day.

Eh, I have a few things from Kickstarter that were successful. Exploding Kittens is probably the most successful one of all the ones I own.