lmmarsano

I don't know what logically led you to that conclusion. Maybe you ought to self-reflect & work on your own biases/not jump to conclusions?

I'm linking to supporting references, and you're not, so 🤷.

We ought to be vigilant about leaping to conclusions or letting biases creep in, and I can't control others doing that.

Contrary to these things happening to an insane degree, it's not clear the laboratories in question took adequate precautions.

Concerns about biosafety standards first caught my notice with this report stating that the laboratory may have been working with coronavirus at inappropriate biosafety levels as low as 2 (eg, unblocked respiratory paths of infection). Questioning the source (even though it seems coherent), I noticed other corroborating reports with references. If the reports are true, then these laboratories in the Wuhan Institute worked with infectious coronaviruses at inappropriate biosafety levels lower than their US counterparts.

Let’s be clear - if they were studying the virus in a lab and it “got out” from the lab or from the wild what difference does it make?

Firmer policies & enforcement of safety protocols? Informed selection of safety protocols?

The word “means” is also used for logical entailment

Yes in the contexts you gave.

No in this context: they're referring to the ruling on the legal definition.

You think I’m defending the stupid ruling.

Where does it say that?

It's a technical discussion of a legal definition. Defense/preference/endorsement is not implied.

if we’re going about precisely characterizing things

Pinning down legal definitions is what the legal system does. No one is claiming to personally defend it.

When does it not?

A definition identifies the meaning of the word being defined (the definiendum) with the meaning of the words doing the defining (the definiens). It declares their meanings identical, which implies equivalent, which implies symmetric.

The ruling makes law follow a precising definition, which imposes limitations on the conventional meaning to reduce vagueness.

He also said bluesky's shift toward a traditional corporate structure and the introduction of centralized moderation tools were major factors behind his leaving the company, and he vouched for alternatives like nostr.

It seems a bit more challenging to pull shit like this on nostr.

People roman ?

I found it odd, too: dictionary entry. I'm guessing it's cross language: romance languages tend to place nouns before modifiers. Or maybe it's "People of Rome"?

• Roman people
• pull request
• parliamentary report
• press release
• prize ring
• proportional representation
• Puerto Rico
• Permanent Resident
• Progress Report
• Pressure Regulator
• Park Ridge
• Pattern Recognition
• PageRank
• Planning and Responsibility
• Performance Review
• Performance Rating
• Problem Report
• Papa Roach
• Personal Record
• Peer Review
• ⁝

You wouldn't download a car?

I understood exactly what you were saying & assuming: it's just wrong and off-topic.

The article contends "generating Ghibli art style" is an attack on democratic values, which is bullshit. You're saying I'm advocating for disrespecting artists, which I'm not, and has nothing to do whether "generating Ghibli art style" attacks democratic values. The pointless outrage over who is or isn't "respecting artists" is a distraction from the broken thesis of the article: it's wrong & you're letting that appeal to emotion & red herring fallacy

1. distract you from the fact that the article's conclusions don't follow from its premises
2. demonize people who point this out as somehow "against artists" (when they may even agree that it's good to respect artists).

That's wrong, irrational, and you're falling for the article's deception.

worthless when the website itself decides thatbit won’t show you the content

Businesses are legally bound to make their online content accessible: a screenshot without alt text doesn't solve this for them. Isn't it common practice around here to link to archives? Quoting & linking isn't worthless.

quoting? you mean, all of the response tweets?

Yes. Unreasonable? No, compulsory & common standard industry standard. Out of legal necessity (and market reach), they already write text out (as alt text for all meaningful images). An image of a tweet with replies requires writing all that text out.

Try this exercise yourself to realize how pointless an image of text is (which images of tweets mostly are). Take an image of text, write the markup to display the image, include an alt attribute set to the full text shown in the image. If you have any sense, you'll return to the source of the image to copy & paste the original text into the alt attribute. If you lack sense, you'll tediously read the image and retype it into the alt attribute. Your choice.

Realize anything yet?

1. You're returning to the source, so linking it is basic sense, right?
2. You already write text out, but your effort is wasted as a flat text attribute for an image that adds nothing compelling, only some meaningless visuals of UI artifacts. That text could instead be the main attraction with semantic mark up (blockquotes, paragraphs, lists, etc). It makes more sense to skip the image entirely & quote the text directly: less work, more functional, better.

and how do you quote images, videos?

The way it's already done. Online news doesn't typically give screenshots of images or videos. They link, embed, or copy the image or video to directly provide it alongside some quotes.

Selecting lines of text instead of rectangles of screen to copy & paste isn't a novel, farfetched idea.

If the point is to reproduce an image, not text, then yes, definitely provide those images. Agreed: nothing wrong in that.