The EEE strategy would lead to the big corporate entity being the way most people interact. New users would go there instead of other platforms to engage. In time, a lot of the users and content would be on the corporate platform because it's the one that has the most reach, marketing, etc. so defederation would be a big hit.

Gene Wilder as Willie Wonka.

Arse technica

From the researcher: ... more than happy to share the outcomes on the community. There is also in the questionnaire opt in to be notified about any results as well, but the plan is to do a ADHD-friendly report once it’s analysed and that will be shared.

Most democratic country is Norway.

USA is at position 26.

https://wisevoter.com/...

I think they mean using curl to grab something and piping the output to bash so it it executed locally.

And it is pretty common. Things like ohmyzsh use it. I find it scary because you're running things direct from the web without any package signature architecture. I would trust the omz people but what if their GitHub was compromised? But don't check any of the source? No. I don't anyway, but with a bit of fear :/

My favourite bit of this is the comment at the bottom of the page that just says "doubt it". So glad scientific discourse is alive and well.

Just checked and the ethics approval currently covers UK participants only, but the plan is to create a wirld-wide study once this one is complete and analysed.

That's what they're saying. An atheist believes in 0 of the total options for gods and religions that you get if you add them all up. A believer believes in 1 or a few of them. So really, the religious are also non-believers when it comes to most gods and religions.

He has a wife, you know...

(Next server name: Incontinentia Buttocks)

I think if you found the shop magically disappeared the next day after selling only the things people were looking for, no matter how random, it would make more sense.

Maybe they only sold drugs because someone wanted some.

Ah, I see. We don't tend to put it to the mouth. It's more "fuck you". Apparently comes from demonstrating to the French that you still have your bow-drawing fingers and intend to use them. British archers captured by the french would have their first two fingers removed to prevent them launching arrows.

Yeah, I agree. I was just trying to clarify the intent of the comment.

But also I think that's the point of that line of debate. It is an attempt to show a religious stance from an atheist perspective in which belief is a while load of possible strange things accepted as true. It's not really much use other than when you're faced with someone who things your lack of theism is the opposite of their particular brand of religion and frames the discussion around which bits you have issue with, as if they might prove to you that you're wrong. Or to show that their belief that their religion is correct and all the others, including atheism, are the wrong ones, isn't really the other side of what an atheist thinks.

More a thought experiment than meant to characterise the entirety of atheism.

Hmm. I really struggled to type that and now I know why. Clearly my brain knew something was wrong but my conscious mi d was not seeing it

The article bemoans people needing to pick sides, but then makes a case for being anti-palestine because of the regime. Not wanting Palestinians to be treated the way they have, not wanting constant expansion of Israel at the cost of Palestinian land, lives and liberty, isn't the same as being pro-hamas.

I'm "for Palestine" in the sense that it should be recognised as a state, it should be seen as part of the region and given support and resources to make the lives of the people livable. I don't like the regime at all, but the treatment Palestine has received in the past 70 years makes it fertile ground for extremism to take over.

It's not really cognitively difficult to both want an end to violence and oppression of the state while also wanting freedom from persecution within it.

To me, the article says people see things as two aides, which is bad, but then seems to argue that people are picking the wrong side.

I also had this fear. It lasted later than six years old, too. I don't like the sound even now as an adult. I never questioned it until recently when discussing sensory issues. It was pointed out that while I keep saying I have none, there's actually a a list of things I've mentioned that are what other people call sensory issues.

Feels like the article is channeling Zoolander. What is this? A hospital for virtual people?

Seems like a virtual tour is a good idea, tbh.

Twisting the promise, barely making any progress on it and shafting the NHS, now, that's not so good.

C>B>A

I think the problem is that the law is likely to be applied differently to big organisations compared to individuals or smaller organisations, and that the intended purpose of copyright is mostly forgotten.

It was meant to protect creators ability to earn from what they produce for a while so that they would be encouraged to create and share with the world.

Big orgs monopolising access to scientific writing is not what it was for, and it definitely was not meant to have exceptions that let big orgs ignore the rights if creators in order to build software that then endangers the ability of individual creators to earn from what they create.

Glad I read this comment, finally. I just spent 10 minutes trying to work out how to send a DM and assuming it was just me not being used to a new app and missing it.