Gonna include Trump on that list?

When even the putting puppets are saying Trump’s plan is nonsensical…

Why not? There’s still people born who’ve never played those games and come across them. And besides preserving legacy media is actually a worthwhile cause.

In 2016 the Republicans didn’t have the planning or political infrastructure to truly cause the damage they wanted to. In less than a decade we now have an openly corrupt and stacked Supreme Court, a legislature with plenty of Maga sycophants to pass whatever they want and a presidency that is going to be filled with the likes of Elon Musk and the literal Project 2025 playbook written by trumps cronies and the Herritage Foundation.

Control of the house, senate, presidency and Judiciary.

On the flipside in the US, our last climate change fueled disaster had rampant conspiracy theories about government weather control devices and FEMA doing… idk something nefarious.

It’s just how basic demographics analysis works. There’s a lot more people who are struggling with mental health problems/mental disabilities that make them more prone to believing scams. And so many games and storefronts use dark patters to make it extremely easy to make undesired purchases or have no safeguards to prevent children from using their parents credit card for purchases.

All these kinds of people vastly outnumber dumb finance bros on their yachts making stupid money decisions.

people violating your trust?

Implying any of us are equivalent to a $1.5 trillion social media monopoly that has more political and social power than any other organization on the planet. Sure Jan, any one of us is exactly like that.

The severity of punishment does not match the severity of violating the policy. We’ve already figured this idea out in real life and across numerous genres of fiction that at this point is a common trope. It’s literally a sci-fi trope at this point of the paradise planet that everyone loves but the biggest flaw is that any infraction against the law however minor is tje death penalty. The concept of fair punishments is literally baked into the constitution through the bill of rights with the 8th amendment, no cruel and unusual punishments, no excessive bail or excessive fines.

Honestly, it holds up. Sure there’s fewer polygons, but more polygons doesn’t mean it looks better.

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

Read up on how exactly copyright works, as soon as you fix a work in a tangible and communicable form, you have a copyright to it. Taking a nude photo of yourself gives you the exclusove copyright of that photo. Taking a tourist photo does give you copyright to that specific photo, but also doesn’t necessarily supercede another existing copyright if that photo is of something else that already had a copyright.

And depending on jurisdictions, your tourist photos might not be fine. For example, in France, they have very strict privacy laws and copyright enforcement, the Eiffel Tower might be public domain, but the light installation is still under copyright. And any modern buildings designed by an architect who died within the last 70 years is still protected by copyright. And on the privacy front, accidentally taking pictures of other people even in tourist areas could actually open you up to a lawsuit, but nobody’s actually tried that yet so it’s up in the air whether it would hold up.

Not what I’m saying. I’m saying using copyright enforcement systems as the workaround to getting non-consenusal nudes taken down from a website is putting even more burden onto already heavily abused systems. That doesn’t have anything to do with the Zucc running ads, it’s because copyright enforcement systems don’t work very well to begin with and are very easily abused by bad actors. It’s not the right tool for the job, and it would be much better to have something specifically dedicated to getting the non-consensual publishing of nude images taken down instead of some bubblegum and twine hack of a solution through copyright enforcement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity

Its the Right to Publicity. Walmart can record security footage but they shouldn’t be able to use a recording for commercial purposes unless you explicitly give them permission to use it.

The Right to Publicity: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity

I’m not making a comparison between the two, I’m pointing out how resolving posting non-consensual nudes of someone through copyright systems could be abused in other instances. I’m also not saying there shouldn’t be a system for having non-consensual nudes taken down, we absolutely should, but it needs to be a system dedicated to taking down non-consensual images, not a patchwork workaround using copyright.

Then the half eclipse would be wrong, 50% eclipse wouldn’t be a straight line across the diameter. An eclipse is two circles intersecting, not shadow sweeping across a sphere.

It sucks that this is the mechanism we have to use for this but a person’s likeness is their own copyright and posting images of someone without permission could be seen as copyright infringement. Granted this also opens a lot of doors to just completely eliminating almost all images from the internet, like imagine going to a tourist destination and having to get permission from anyone who might be in your overdone posed tourist photo.

Edit: Since some of yall are dense motherfuckers and/or just arguing in bad faith, I’m pointing out how going using copyright as the enforcement mechanism opens the door for these already flawed copyright systems to be heavily abused even further. I’m specifically pointing to Right of Publicity, where your likeness is protected from commercial use unless you give permission to post. It’s why any show or movie that’s filmed in a public place blurs people out if they haven’t gotten signed release forms from anyone who appears on camera.

https://youtu.be/rcUedQ_0988?si=VFePPVsml-sa8weZ

Yup the flour is very likely to contain e coli. The eggs are still a risk with salmonella but the e coli is a much greater and more potent risk

Terrorism is actually a pretty simple but specific definition. Terrorists use unlawful violence and threats of violence to influence the government or an international governmental organisation, or to intimidate the public. They do this in pursuit of a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

It doesn’t take much money or many resources to engage in violence or even make threats. Certainly having money and resources at your disposal make you more effective but it’s a rather low but still specific bar to cross to be considered a terrorist.