middlemuddle

She's apparently made it her life's work to abuse the vulnerability of both bio and foster parents by leveraging her "knowledge" in a way that favors kids being permanently separated from their bio family. There are certainly circumstances that warrant that kind of separation, but she and that lawyer's office seem to be leading a campaign of child separation. That's pure evil.

I think that's just more examples of it being misused. BMI may be useful to compare populations in certain instances. It has value in being easily calculated based off data that is often easy to obtain. But, there are many situations where it would be inappropriate to use BMI for statistical comparison. That doesn't mean it's entirely useless.

It’s not really a “Tesla thing”, it’s an electric motor thing.

Seriously. My Nissan Leaf in Eco mode (which limits acceleration) feels peppy and is super fun to drive.

An ad-free web is definitely a pipe dream. But a targeted ad-free web should be a simple option available to users. I'd guess that the majority of the public doesn't care too much about being tracked, and may even appreciate having their relevant interests targeted so that they see an ad that is more interesting to them. The problem is that, for those of us who don't want to be targeted, there is no simple way to disable that. Companies have baked their ad targeting directly into the functionality of their platforms so it's incredibly difficult to avoid targeted ads if you still want to use the most popular sites. I think this is the reality that is unacceptable.

Every browser should have a simple toggle to enable targeted ads and it should be every site should respect this. I'm not super educated on Google's Topics solution, but maybe the step away from cookies could theoretically support that kind of reality. I don't think Google is going to lead the charge on that kind of change, but we certainly need to get away from cookies somehow.

The US has limits on free speech in the name of public health and safety. There's no assumption of limitless free speech in the US. People who cry "free speech" typically have no understanding of its actual legal definition in the country and just want an excuse to be a bigoted asshole without consequences.

Twitter, not being part of the government, gets to decide what content they allow and doesn't need to worry too much about the legal definition of free speech. But, despite Musk's claims, Twitter is not actually a space of limitless free speech. They've taken plenty of actions since he took over that limit the speech of individuals he disagrees with. Twitter is just interesting in giving a platform to hate. There's certainly money to be made in monetizing hate (see Trump), but hopefully it doesn't work out well in the end for Twitter or Musk.

Do you know if that means that the FDA could just backup and do the approval process again and conclude that it does not need to follow the pathway of a dangerous drug? If it aligned with other drugs that way, then legal arguments might be moot?

Honestly, this story doesn't need to be covered as an opinion piece. The facts that we know at this point are damning enough. There are plenty of articles that cover it better: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/14/1193676139/newspaper-marion-county-kansas-police-raid-first-amendment

The paper didn't initially publish anything. They were following-up on tips and doing some very basic journalism. They opted not to publish some inflammatory stuff because they were worried they were being used in a domestic dispute. The paper only published a story to defend themselves after they were accused of a bunch of stuff by the restaurant owner. Then the raid happened.

I hope everyone involved in authorizing/executing the raid gets absolutely brutalized by the legal system. They shouldn't hold the positions they have because they're clearly not qualified and the paper deserves significant compensation. The founder of the paper died the day after the raid; she was 98 and it's very likely that the trauma of being raided by the police contributed to her death.

My argument is that it's not surprising that someone would choose to pay $20/mo for 1 service with all the things they want versus paying $100/mo to deal with 4 services.

The fact that Netflix et al pay their creators squat is a separate component. I was just pointing out that saying you want to pay content creators for their work doesn't really equate to paying for a Netflix subscription. If someone wants to ensure they're paying creators for their content, there are much better ways to do so. You can pay the $20/mo to pirate stuff, then donate to the Entertainment Community Fund, or buy something directly from a writer's website with the $80/mo you've saved.

what’s the point?

Simplicity and overall cost. Pirating is cheaper and allows you to get everything in one place versus 5 different streaming platforms. I see the draw.

And it's hard to make the case that paying streamers equates to paying the content creators with the strikes highlighting how little the actual creators get out of the deal. I'm in favor of paying for content, but you can't say paying Netflix their continually increasing, and more restrictive, subscription fees is actually contributing to supporting creators who make good content.

I knew I wasn't going crazy! That press any key habit is so ingrained because it's been around since I played my first game on a 286 PC, probably longer.

I'm not experiencing that issue either and I have half the amount of RAM that you do. I've noticed an unnecessary autorefresh only after closing out of the browser for a long time, never in the middle of switching between apps. But, that does sound like annoying behavior.

I think that differentiation is only a difference in how the benefit would be calculated. It would be quite a departure from the current state of things, but it's worth being part of the discussion.

Assuming we're all compensated at different rates based on our value to the company, then one person's time is more valuable than another person's time. As the employee, commute time and work time might as well be conflated since it's time spent away from the rest of our lives. It's different for the company, of course, since commute time is not productive work time, but if we're talking about this as benefits that companies might offer in order to retain or attract employees then I don't think the company's opinion matters.