Unilever certainly does, so fuck them.

Malaysia is currently undertaking this full transition as well.

100% agreed. You’re always welcome over at [email protected] if you’re not already there. I imagine some of the 18:1 upvoters so far statistically haven’t realized – owing to deeply rooted doublethink – that I’m also talking about something they directly pay for on a subdaily basis.

Good. Animal abuse in any form can’t be part of a decent society.

Where is this champion among men that I may smell them?

And both call a lot of things communism that aren’t actually communism.

A paragraph reads:

The significant finding may be the largest collection of human remains found in one place within Petra, according to researchers, and it was featured Wednesday on the season premiere of “Expedition Unknown.” (Discovery Channel is owned by CNN’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery.)

And then they immediately thereafter show a picture of a regular-ass clay cup with the caption:

Within the tomb beneath the Treasury, archaeologists found a ceramic vessel resembling the [literally just a fucking motif in fictional stories and not a real artifact, we conveniently forget to mention] Holy Grail. (Discovery’s Expedition Unknown)

I fucking hate corporate journalism so much.

Oh yeah, to be clear, no disrespect to people who use trucks routinely for their intended purpose.

Up to you if you want to adopt this, but I’ve taken to calling those tiny, useless afterthoughts tacked onto modern trucks “vestigial beds”.

A truck is a tool

Nah, that’s usually the person driving it.

Just a low-effort regurgitation of a MS blog post to then sell you on an ROG Ally X affiliate link at the end. I love modern online journalism.

Better get reading if you want to have any hope of disproving the unicorn statute:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1

You’re the one making a claim here that this is a probable First Amendment violation and liable to get the CCC in deep legal shit here, not me. The burden of proof is on you.

If a unicorn runs into the courtroom, the prosecution is required to do the hokey pokey and donate exactly $2 to a charity of the defense’s choice. Now I could be a good boy and cite the statute that says that, or I could tell you “actually, you go find something that says it doesn’t exist and prove me wrong lol.”

Which one seems more reasonable?

Okay, and your legal credentials and/or cited example(s) of judicial precedent is/are [fill in the blank here].

To be clear, they are simply choosing not to continue providing something they’re actively privileging Musk with, namely allowing the rocket launches. They’re not revoking something that he inherently has the right to.

It would be like if the government were paying Musk money, he said and did a bunch of fucked up shit, and then – absent a contract saying they can’t – stopped providing the money. That’s not a First Amendment violation; that’s just discontinuing giving Musk something he isn’t entitled to.

The California Coastal Commission’s job is to conserve the Californian coastline and have the authority to approve and deny this sort of thing, and no, you absolutely do not have a legal right to just launch a shitload of rockets off the Californian coast without prior government approval.

I’m not literally saying that Musk is employed by the California government; I’m saying that Musk doesn’t have an inherent legal right to this much like I don’t have an inherent legal right to work in the government, and California has the right to shut down his rocket launches on any grounds they want.

This is not a First Amendment violation or anything approximating one. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech”, and this of course applies to laws created by state legislatures too. What law is being created here which abridges freedom of speech? A state commission is denying Musk from launching more rockets from the coast, something which he absolutely does not have an inherent legal right to do.

Would you say that it’d be a First Amendment issue if I applied for a government job, went and cussed out the interviewer, and then was turned down for the job because it was the government abridging my freedom of speech?

It’s definitely been a bit of a pain over on Wikipedia, but I’m glad that the IA is being responsible about this instead of just saying “fuck it, ship it”.

A Hot Topic?

Man, idk why you’re getting flak for this one.

• Certainly [email protected] posts had very little overlap with the Indian elections and their voters compared to the US elections.
• I’m not sure the bot was around then.
• I think wanting to combat misinformation is a good thing; my gripe has always been that I think the bot just does a terrible job at it.

MSN is one of the biggest piece of shit middlemen I’ve seen on the Internet. Good riddance, and to be absolutely clear, I’m glad the mods are doing this.

Selection bias means that a lot of people who actively dislike the bot have it blocked.

Doesn’t mean they don’t think it’s ridiculous and misleading.