What you describe isn't software getting acquired, it's a website getting acquired.
schnurrito
joined 2 years ago
50
'Anonymity Online Is Going to Die': What Age-Verification Laws Could Look Like in the U.S.
(www.rollingstone.com)
333
Trump Opens DOJ Investigation Because Crime Rates In Washington D.C. Aren’t High Enough
(www.techdirt.com)
Are you sure you will be allowed to drive a manual car in Romania with your American license if you didn't take the test with a manual car? I live in a different European country and here if you take the test with an automatic car, you are only allowed to drive automatic cars. You should research this.
It's definitely different from an automatic car and requires more concentration. Once you get used to it, it's not difficult. I was older than you are now when I learned to drive at all (which I did on a manual car) and managed it anyway.
Legal questions can't be meaningfully answered without a location. But there are many places where there are laws against that and this can be a crime.
I suspect you already know about Meads v Meads. Paragraph 73 of that provides some clues:
All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals.
Many people like the thought that they know something no one else knows or that at least most people don't know. Including things about the law.
It's not an exam, it's a discussion among professionals in the field.
The existence of cash is probably the least of one's problems in that scenario. How is food going to be delivered to stores without working gas pumps? How will stores open their electronic doors or process payments without a cash register?
If this is something you are worried about, store enough non-perishable (eg canned) food in your home so you don't starve in that scenario.
Probably true. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ was written before most people cared much about this but certainly applies very strongly to it. I am fortunately not directly affected by it either way (I am neither trans nor a woman nor have any desire to pretend to be trans in order to get access to women's spaces) so it doesn't get my emotions up much to read any side's arguments; I can see why that may be different for others.
When I first became active on reddit, I admired how few sitewide rules they had and how much free speech they allowed.
Now they ban debate about one of the most contentious and multifaceted societal issues of the present. What are online discussion forums there for if not to openly and civilly exchange ideas about issues like this?
IRC still exists. Forums are somewhat hard to host nowadays because lots of governments have passed laws imposing more and more regulation, liability and duties of care on operators of web platforms. We would need to start movements to repeal those laws first, I'm certainly in favor of that! But I think the future of forums is nonetheless ActivityPub; it is a lot better to be able to read about all topics that interest me on one website rather than having to click through many different ones.
Flash games: why do you want those back? Flash is a proprietary platform and it's a good thing we can now do the things we used to do with it directly in the browser with HTML5 and JS. You can still play Flash games with Ruffle, there are still websites out there that host them.
Video sites that aren't YouTube: nowadays videos can be much more easily hosted elsewhere than YouTube than was the case in the 2000s. Many social media platforms allow direct upload of videos and any website operator can easily directly embed a video without needing either YouTube or something based on Flash Player. So I'm not sure what you're nostalgic for when it comes to this topic.
Who is "he"? I think they might mean Donald Trump, who AFAIK is a resident of Florida?
It can be argued that it's racist because "civilized" means "western" or "western-influenced", i.e. contrasts countries in Europe + North America + Australia + maybe some of Eastern Asia with countries in Africa or Southern Asia.
You are very close to figuring out some of the problems with "social justice" ideology.
Standing up for all "oppressed groups" is contradictory. For example, in western countries, LGBT people are an oppressed group, and so are Muslims, yet when the latter are in power, they treat the former very badly, so which side do you stand up for? Or try these: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2008/11/07/blacks-are-more-socially-conservative-than-barack-obama https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-republicans-some-moral-issues.aspx
It also doesn't help in conflicts such as Israel/Palestine (are Palestinians oppressed by Israel, so we stand up for them? are Israelis oppressed by the Muslim world, so we stand up for Israel?) or trans activists vs. trans-exclusionary feminists (are trans people an oppressed group whose rights we support? are women an oppressed group whose identity is being appropriated by trans women?). You can see it's possible to argue nearly everything from the premise that we stand up for "oppressed groups".
So I suggest people stop thinking in these terms at all and instead pick some other way of thinking, such as supporting a society in which anyone is allowed to live their life as long as they aren't harming anyone else. Not saying this helps in the specific (somewhat silly) argument you are quoting.