Yeah, reading the article, it sounds like they’ve decided to park at the space station because the parts that malfunctioned during the journey to the space station were not designed to survive re-entry, meaning that they won’t have the opportunity to understand what went wrong with them after they return to Earth. So they’re delaying the departure in order to collect as much information as possible about what went wrong in the first part of the mission. They’re still confident that a safe return is going to happen.

The ask that YouTube manage their system better. Currently, they assume that a copyright claim is valid unless proven otherwise, and it is difficult for content creators to actually get them to review a claim to determine if it is invalid. So, a lot of legitimate users that post videos without actually violating anybody’s copyright end up being permanently punished for somebody illegitimate claim. What we want is for YouTube to, one, make it more difficult or consequential to file a bad claim, and two, make it easier to dispute a bad claim.

However, that’s not going to happen because the YouTube itself is legally responsible for copyrighted material that is posted to their platform. Because of that, they are incentivised to assume a claim is valid lest they end up in court for violating somebody’s legitimate copyright. Meaning that the current system entails a private company adjudicating legal questions where they are not an impartial actor in the dispute.

So your concern is legitimate, but it’s ignoring the fact that we already are in a situation where a private company is prosecuting fraud. People want it to change so that it is more in favor of the content creators (or at least, in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty), but it would ultimately be better if they were not involved in it whatsoever. However, major copyright holders pushed for laws that put the onus on YouTube because it makes it easier for them, and it’s unlikely for those laws to change anytime soon. That’s what I’d say we should be pushing for, but it’s also fair to say that the Content ID system is flawed and allows too much fraud to go unpunished.

You’re talking about the court system. They are talking about Content ID. YouTube makes it easy to submit faulty copyright claims with little repercussions if they fail, so there are more fraudulent claims than you’d see in the actual court system. They want YouTube to penalize the abuse of their system more strongly so people that upload videos don’t have to deal with so much shit.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it means to cut in a wasteful manner, particularly in terms of fabric. From elsewhere, it looks like it’s also used in construction in regards to cutting material such that the remaining sections are not usable for other purposes.

However, I’m not sure how stale bread discourages such cuts.

I was more so responding in regards to the original posters comment regarding the lack of justification as distinguishing this act from murder. If the police officers were allowed to kill him under the law, it is not murder. Murder, by my sources (which show the English-language definition) as well as yours (which show the legal definition), is a legal term that applies to a subset of acts of homicide.

Murder is a specific kind of homicide which is defined as the “unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

• Merriam-Webster
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Dictionary.com

I prefer Software Engineer, mostly because I studied at an engineering school and have a degree in Software Engineering. My actual titles have varied throughout my career, but I overall consider myself a software engineer.

You’re saying that it doesn’t matter because the US government is able to prove his citizenship, but that isn’t in question. The crux of this matter would be whether OP was ignorant of his citizenship and if that ignorance would have any relevance to his case.

Securing official documents only available to American citizens makes it more difficult to argue that he was ignorant of his status as an American citizen. He likely could still make a compelling argument (provided he acts quickly), but it does make it a bit more difficult.

Oh, and once you build that, I’ll move in and expect you to build the rest of the house on top of it.

Yeah, I found it on my laptop and was too lazy to send it over to my phone where I was on lemmy. So I typed it up, and then I actually sent the link to my phone when it was pointed out that it was broken.

Well, maybe lazy isn’t the right word. But I was too something.

It was an interview with Jonathan Swan about COVID-19 where Trump had a bunch of papers with graphs trying to show that the US was doing well with cases. The paper he handed over showed the rates of deaths per case (though Trump didn’t seem to understand the graph), and Swan was asking him about the high rate of deaths in the US when looking at the total population of the country.

https://youtu.be/NmrEfQG6pIg

Same thing with me and chess in high school. I learned TrueBASIC, and I didn’t learn about arrays or subroutines. But, I did manage to make a chess application that two people could play a game of chess on. It highlighted legal moves when you clicked on a piece and ensured that only legal moves were made. It also showed the captured pieces to the side of the board. I think I had it set up so that you could only promote to a previously captured piece, but all the other rules were implemented properly (or at least, I assumed they were).

The implementation involved a bunch of variables for each individual chess piece and a bunch of if statements inside a loop. I remember describing arrays and explaining that I wished they existed, but never actually found out they did until I was finished. I don’t know how many lines of code it was, but when I copied it into Word, and it spanned about 350 pages in total.

Part of me is proud of the accomplishment. Another part is horrified.

The executive branch is a bureaucracy that has to follow procedures. The president can direct the agency to start these processes, and that’s what he done. The HHS has done the necessary work to show that cannabis is deserving of a lower schedule according to the Controlled Substances Act. It is now up to the DEA to review that data and reschedule it accordingly. This is the process stipulated by the law, and the executive branch must adhere to it. If they don’t, it will be undone in the courts.

The alternative route would be for Congress to pass a new law to specifically legalize cannabis, but they do not have the numbers, so the Biden administration has to follow the process outlined in the existing laws. He’s done what he is legally able to do, and it’s more than any of his predecessors have. It may be slow, but it’s pretty much a fast as the law allows.

The idea here are very interesting to read, but I think I’m leaning most favorably towards the last group’s idea to bury it with as little marking as possible. The plans modeled on Stonehenge seem odd to me. Stonehenge is famously a monument whose origin and purpose was a mystery, and that mystery enticed people from all over the world to travel to the site and excavate it. It seems more like a good reference for a method that would not work. How many people would have toyed around at Stonehenge if the monument weren’t there?

At the same time, we have events with contaminated materials being used in construction within a matter of months or years, so it’s not like these are abstract problems. E.g., look at the 1983 Ciudad Juárez Cobalt 60 incident. We have the technology to identify contaminated materials, but we’d only use them if we have reason to believe we should. It’s probably fair to assume the same of future societies, so it makes sense to want to make sure they have reason to believe they should test the area.

If he were merely telling unfunny, inoffensive jokes, people would stop listening. But people wouldn’t call that canceling; they’d just say that he used to be great and place the blame on his shoulders. But because it’s unfunny, offensive jokes, it’s suddenly the audience’s fault for walking away.

Don’t blame the audience for refusing to listen to him. It’s his job to draw people in, and it’s his fault if he fails to do so.

I started a job at a regional bank on a team that was responsible for integrating the data from newly acquired banks into their systems. The team was overworked and definitely needed more hands on deck, but they didn’t have time to train anybody new on the process. Aside from that, the organization of the team was pretty poor.

When I started, they seemed unaware that I was supposed to be starting that day, so they didn’t have a desk or anything ready for me. So that first day was a bit of a wash. The second day, they put me at a desk on the floor above the rest of my team. That was also the only time that I met the manager who hired me. It seemed like people mostly forgot about me because I didn’t really get any work assigned until a couple weeks in.

They wanted me to make one of their mapping documents (which appeared to be a SQL statement copied into a Word document with every detail meticulously documented across twenty pages). I didn’t have any idea where to start with it. The next day, they said that there is no way I could do that without training, so they took the assignment away. Over the next couple of months, I’d bring up that I didn’t have anything to work on at every morning meeting. But other than that, I just spent my day editing Wikipedia articles.

Eventually they keyed in on the fact that they were paying me $90k per year to do nothing, so they fired me. They said it was probably their fault for hiring somebody without banking experience. I don’t think banking experience would have helped.

Oh yeah, and the meeting where I was fired was also where I found out that the person firing me was my team lead.