For me at least, that opinion came from a time when the internet wasn’t dominated by corporations, and giant coordinated misinformation campaigns weren’t a problem.

When the main actors on the internet were individuals, I agree, government interference would limit their freedom.

But as it is now, corporations determine who gets access to information, how it gets filtered, which voices get amplified and which get silenced.

One of the only effective ways we’ve seen in recent years to force corporations to do the right thing, and restore some freedom for individuals, is by government regulation.

That’s why I’ve changed my mind on that.

I’m sorry, but I’ma keep calling it twitter. You can fuck right off with x

A problem with the older studies that seemed to indicate that alcohol had health benefits was also that their control group, the people who didn’t drink, turned out largely not to do so because they already had severe medical problems. They weren’t allowed to drink because of them.

Compared to them it looked like the people who did drink were more healthy on average. So they concluded there must be health benefits to drinking alcohol.

This “Science VS” episode is about that (and has a bunch of citations in its transcript): https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/llhdgj

Ooh I hope tubes come back. I need cheaper and better quality tubes for my guitar amp collection damn it!

Yes, and for collapsing comments, it would be great if we could turn the haptic feedback off altogether

I interpret the image as saying: (some) religious people believe all answers worth knowing have already been revealed to us, and can only be found through study of the same few religious texts written hundreds of years ago. So those religious people don’t necessarily feel they already know everything, but they are convinced that the religious texts are the source of all knowledge.

I don’t know enough about Islam to claim that this applies, but it certainly applied to Christianity up until the enlightenment: there was no point in doing experiments to find out more about the world, the answer was already in the Bible. If you couldn’t see it yet, you needed to study the Bible more.

They didn’t argue the product (the content on streaming platforms) was bad, they argued the only legal ways you can get the product are not acceptable.

Therefore yes, it becomes ok in my book to violate copyright (which does not equate to stealing, the owner hasn’t lost the original).

As soon as I can have a choice of service that has virtually all of the content (like you do with music, or groceries), and I can pick the storefront based on its usability and cost rather than its catalogue, piracy numbers will go right down. Because it becomes less of a hassle to get it legally rather than pirate.

They’re WIMPs though…

I'd like a test flight link

I tend to take Qwirkle and Sushi-Go on trips. Sometimes Kluster as well, though while it is small to pack, it’s heavier than you’d expect, due to the magnets.

Science VS: They investigate the science behind trends. E.g. ozempic, protein powder, the male g-spot, weed strains etc. With citations for everything

Gastropod: The science and history of various foods

Radiolab: Documentaries on a wide range of subjects. Usually from an angle you wouldn’t expect

Wong Notes: Vulfpeck guitarist Cory Wong interviews other artists from a musician’s pov, which leads to much more interesting conversations than your usual interview

In that same vein: mini motorways and stacklands

Well… I guess the song is over then…

Slack already does allow your admin to view all of your conversations, which is more alarming to me

I’m a slack admin for my company, and I can tell you that no: admins can’t read DMs or private channels they’re not a part of