This is a beef I have with Google and DDG image searches. Either I will get no porn hits or only porn hits, revealing that the engine, when set on don't filter is definitely filtering. Instead the engine first decides if I do want porn or don't want porn, and then gives me hits consistent with that assessment.
One of the games I play is to find out how suggestive a search term I can make before it flops over to porn, or how ambiguous I can make a ribald search before it flips to non-porn. Spreads between 10% porn and 90% porn are conspicuously rare.
They want their cut of the fingers holding the candy.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure store-bought official franchise costumes come with a license. As my grandson wears his after Halloween until they fall apart, I wonder if he's breaking a TOS.
Maybe soon we'll be dressing out toddlers as sexy generic archetype for trick-or-treating when license requirements assure us proles can't afford to be a favorite character.
The more you tighten your grip, Governor Tarkin...
Yeah the media industries of Japan leaned into fan hentai / rule 34 to retain a voice by which to encourage some boundaries. This kind of shakedown will not only lower the fence for pervier content but will also reduce SFW fan content by which to tide fans over.
Right now, most of the US public believes its phones are secure, even from law enforcement. This includes employees of government departments that have secrets.
Is it stupid? Sure, but right now we're in a maelstrom of lies and vicious rumors. Are we losing our data to hackers? All the time.
And yet, there is an expectation of privacy, one that has been affirmed by courts multiple times that police should not be searching phones without warrants.
ICE and CBP don't care. They're not even obeying the President of the United States right now.
I call bullshit. We were told by Apple and Google that our data is safe. We've been told by courts police won't search our phones without good reason (and a warrant). We've been told we who do no wrong have nothing to hide.
Malik wore the right clothes and deigned not to drink too much. He just didn't wear the clothes a hypercautious tech guru (or a journalist experienced with run-ins with law enforcement) might use.
And Officer Sullivan is abusing his position of power. He is committing a crime if anyone cared. (Actually I'm not sure of that. Maybe law enforcement officers are allowed to use police resources to stalk ex-partners and neighbors they don't like. Are they? It's about the same level of misconduct in this case.)
I think if Malik did anything wrong, it was to underestimate the degree of lack of accountability the CBP can depend on, and the level of corruption in the department that is routine in 2021.
The WSJ been shambling down the path to FOX-Newsist right-wing propaganda rag since the aughts if not the eighties (when I read my grandfather's subscription).
And like CBS and Sixty Minutes it has every reason to throw shade on the internet while its gatekeeper-cred dwindles away.
If you're walking out in the wilderness (say, a national park) say, alone or with a dog or a family member, then you're not mandated to wear a mask. (Though check with your own county regulations to see what they are. Here in Yolo, I can walk my dog mask-free).
If you're in a place where you're going to encounter a lot of other people, then yes, cross contamination risks are greater.
Oh, and politics is not football. If you're not voting for your own self-interests (say because you like a given team rather than its platform) then you're voting for more corruption.
My response to the first question (How do we sort out what's right without Divine Command Theory?) got delayed for moderation, probably because I linked to too many Wikipedia pages.
And it's Friday, so it'll probably surface on Monday.
Firstly, the institution of marriage has its own problems. We've long established that marriage is not merely a license to procreate, and yet the resistance to give LGBT+ folk the right to marry (and access the extensive library of state benefits for married couples) was a long, hard fought battle with opposition largely among the gatekeepers, so marriage itself is less a device of social function and more of a device of social control. This is affirmed by the fact that children are still being married in the United States, often to older partners (and are then expected to perform their marital duties). Nine-year-olds were being (legally!) married as recently as the 1990s, and I know of a thirteen-year-old married in 2018, so marriage doesn't serve to assure functional matches or to protect children.
Then, modern medical science regards premarital sex as healthy and functional despite the social expectation that brides will be virgins. a robust sexual routine has a number of health benefits, and premarital sex promotes sexual self-awareness, so a person knows what she (he) wants, what turns her on and gets her off, which makes for more communicative, longer lasting relationships.
Extra-marital sex can serve when two partners have mismatched libidos, have to spend a lot of time apart or just have mutual appetites to play the field. Emotions like jealousy can be a matter (often more an issue of inclusion than possession), but also can be navigated with communication.
So, despite the common believe that open marriages are fragile, It's deception and imbalanced negotiations that cause those relationships to break down, not the sex. Plural relationships have to be win-win(-win-win-win) and not like our click-through telecommunications term-of-service contracts.
(Speaking of which, it's difficult to create a society that respects consent when most of our other interactions are about one side trying to graft the other side. But that's a criticism of late-stage capitalism, not of sexuality.)
Without God [telling us how to behave in society] how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it?
It's a pedantic nit (from a philosopher's perspective) that the role of guiding humankind is not necessarily integrated with the role of creating the universe. Not a big deal, but in most faiths, the two roles are separate.
For one thing, we've worked out (multiple times) divine command theory hasn't been all that great for us serfs. Divine right of kings has invariably resulted in a John of England, a Caligula or a Trump† who sets progress back generations. When we're lucky, it results in social movements away from religious decree and toward anthropocentric forms of leadership-selection.
So what do we do when God isn't telling us what to do (or we highly suspect scripture is really some ancient-era version of Dienetics)? We figure out better ways. This is where we delve into notions like utilitarianism or contractrarianism (see also, the Social Contract). Having been screwed over by God-ordained creedalism (deontological ethics when ethicists talk about them) we work out better ways. Trial and error. When oligarchs aren't trying to force us back into feudalism, they can work pretty well.
But another thing: We don't care. Even when we are devoutly religious. Even when we are ethicists, the human ape tends more to do what he (she) feels like doing, rather than what he believes he is morally obligated to do. Black churchgoers voted (mostly) for Clinton in 2016. White churchgoers voted (mostly) for Trump. They all felt justified. And even the wackos that raided the Capitol on January 6th felt they were entirely vindicated and justified in their assault. The religious leaders and political leaders of the US routinely engage in peculation despite their (alleged) upstanding moral qualities, and our religious gladly engage in partisanship when choosing who to forgive and who to condemn.
So without God telling us what to do we'd be... doing what we do now, most likely.
† Yes, Trump was elected, not appointed, but only though non-democratic means, and the religious blocs defied their own morality (trump's less-than-pure character and history, for which other politicians have been routinely condemned) as if it were a mandate from God. It was at least a mandate from their respective religious institutions, and blind obedience contributed to Trump's electoral victory.
TechDirt is known for complex, nuanced opinions that are consistent according to specific notions of policy. And its opinions occasionally even evolve with the times (e.g. Tom Wheeler is not a dingo.)
If state officials were more prone to enlightened self interest, (id est long-term interest) TechDirt would likely be less critical of them.
Once more let me remind you what fascism is. It need not wear a brown shirt or a green shirt-it may even wear a dress shirt. Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power and special privilege. --Tommy Douglas
On the post: Microsoft Offers To Break The Web In A Desperate Attempt To Get Somebody To Use Its Widely-Ignored Bing Search Engine
Getting porn when looking for something else
This is a beef I have with Google and DDG image searches. Either I will get no porn hits or only porn hits, revealing that the engine, when set on don't filter is definitely filtering. Instead the engine first decides if I do want porn or don't want porn, and then gives me hits consistent with that assessment.
One of the games I play is to find out how suggestive a search term I can make before it flops over to porn, or how ambiguous I can make a ribald search before it flips to non-porn. Spreads between 10% porn and 90% porn are conspicuously rare.
On the post: Annual Reminder: You Can Probably Just Call The Super Bowl The Super Bowl
Not played in January.
That makes it even better.
On the post: Microsoft Offers To Break The Web In A Desperate Attempt To Get Somebody To Use Its Widely-Ignored Bing Search Engine
Bing's image search is useful
I use it to look for larger versions of an image, or other pictures of the same event.
On the post: Microsoft Offers To Break The Web In A Desperate Attempt To Get Somebody To Use Its Widely-Ignored Bing Search Engine
This is a Tears For Fears song.
Everybody wants to destroy the internet.
On the post: Annual Reminder: You Can Probably Just Call The Super Bowl The Super Bowl
Nope.
For me it's the Momentous January Sports Event.
It's some kind of cult thing that I stay home from every year because people suddenly feel compelled to form large excited crowds.
On the post: Japan Looks To Amend Copyright Law To Force Some Cosplayers To Pay To Cosplay
Their cut of the candy
They want their cut of the fingers holding the candy.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure store-bought official franchise costumes come with a license. As my grandson wears his after Halloween until they fall apart, I wonder if he's breaking a TOS.
Maybe soon we'll be dressing out toddlers as sexy generic archetype for trick-or-treating when license requirements assure us proles can't afford to be a favorite character.
On the post: Japan Looks To Amend Copyright Law To Force Some Cosplayers To Pay To Cosplay
The more you tighten your grip, Governor Tarkin...
Yeah the media industries of Japan leaned into fan hentai / rule 34 to retain a voice by which to encourage some boundaries. This kind of shakedown will not only lower the fence for pervier content but will also reduce SFW fan content by which to tide fans over.
On the post: Japan Looks To Amend Copyright Law To Force Some Cosplayers To Pay To Cosplay
"ideas to screw what's working just fine"
Intellectual property is rent seeking. At this point it might be worthy of an initialism like ACAB.
IPIRS isn't terrible.
On the post: Texas Immigration Lawyer Sues DHS, CBP Over Seizure And Search Of His Work Phone
"A very different scenario"
Okay, I'll bite. How is it relevant?
Right now, most of the US public believes its phones are secure, even from law enforcement. This includes employees of government departments that have secrets.
Is it stupid? Sure, but right now we're in a maelstrom of lies and vicious rumors. Are we losing our data to hackers? All the time.
And yet, there is an expectation of privacy, one that has been affirmed by courts multiple times that police should not be searching phones without warrants.
ICE and CBP don't care. They're not even obeying the President of the United States right now.
I call bullshit. We were told by Apple and Google that our data is safe. We've been told by courts police won't search our phones without good reason (and a warrant). We've been told we who do no wrong have nothing to hide.
Malik wore the right clothes and deigned not to drink too much. He just didn't wear the clothes a hypercautious tech guru (or a journalist experienced with run-ins with law enforcement) might use.
And Officer Sullivan is abusing his position of power. He is committing a crime if anyone cared. (Actually I'm not sure of that. Maybe law enforcement officers are allowed to use police resources to stalk ex-partners and neighbors they don't like. Are they? It's about the same level of misconduct in this case.)
I think if Malik did anything wrong, it was to underestimate the degree of lack of accountability the CBP can depend on, and the level of corruption in the department that is routine in 2021.
On the post: Japan Looks To Amend Copyright Law To Force Some Cosplayers To Pay To Cosplay
I can see it now...
Spiderman gets arrested for visiting cancer patients without a license.
(Spiderman is now owned by Disney, so well, duh.)
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re: Easy Difference
[Platforms] do become publishers when they engage in biased and bad faith moderation.
Are you making this up as you go along? Who decides when moderation is biased or done in bad faith?
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
Politically neutral
FOX News has never been politically neutral. Not when it was started in 1996 and not since.
Given the duty was never enforced, I'd say it doesn't exist.
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
To be fair
The WSJ been shambling down the path to FOX-Newsist right-wing propaganda rag since the aughts if not the eighties (when I read my grandfather's subscription).
And like CBS and Sixty Minutes it has every reason to throw shade on the internet while its gatekeeper-cred dwindles away.
On the post: Google Threatens To Pull Out Of Australia Entirely; Australians Demand That It Both Stay And Pay News Orgs For Giving Them Traffic
Walking in a national park
If you're walking out in the wilderness (say, a national park) say, alone or with a dog or a family member, then you're not mandated to wear a mask. (Though check with your own county regulations to see what they are. Here in Yolo, I can walk my dog mask-free).
If you're in a place where you're going to encounter a lot of other people, then yes, cross contamination risks are greater.
Oh, and politics is not football. If you're not voting for your own self-interests (say because you like a given team rather than its platform) then you're voting for more corruption.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Devil's advocate
My response to the first question (How do we sort out what's right without Divine Command Theory?) got delayed for moderation, probably because I linked to too many Wikipedia pages.
And it's Friday, so it'll probably surface on Monday.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Extra-marital sex
Is sex outside of marriage right?
Firstly, the institution of marriage has its own problems. We've long established that marriage is not merely a license to procreate, and yet the resistance to give LGBT+ folk the right to marry (and access the extensive library of state benefits for married couples) was a long, hard fought battle with opposition largely among the gatekeepers, so marriage itself is less a device of social function and more of a device of social control. This is affirmed by the fact that children are still being married in the United States, often to older partners (and are then expected to perform their marital duties). Nine-year-olds were being (legally!) married as recently as the 1990s, and I know of a thirteen-year-old married in 2018, so marriage doesn't serve to assure functional matches or to protect children.
Then, modern medical science regards premarital sex as healthy and functional despite the social expectation that brides will be virgins. a robust sexual routine has a number of health benefits, and premarital sex promotes sexual self-awareness, so a person knows what she (he) wants, what turns her on and gets her off, which makes for more communicative, longer lasting relationships.
Extra-marital sex can serve when two partners have mismatched libidos, have to spend a lot of time apart or just have mutual appetites to play the field. Emotions like jealousy can be a matter (often more an issue of inclusion than possession), but also can be navigated with communication.
So, despite the common believe that open marriages are fragile, It's deception and imbalanced negotiations that cause those relationships to break down, not the sex. Plural relationships have to be win-win(-win-win-win) and not like our click-through telecommunications term-of-service contracts.
(Speaking of which, it's difficult to create a society that respects consent when most of our other interactions are about one side trying to graft the other side. But that's a criticism of late-stage capitalism, not of sexuality.)
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Divine Command Theory
Without God [telling us how to behave in society] how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it?
It's a pedantic nit (from a philosopher's perspective) that the role of guiding humankind is not necessarily integrated with the role of creating the universe. Not a big deal, but in most faiths, the two roles are separate.
For one thing, we've worked out (multiple times) divine command theory hasn't been all that great for us serfs. Divine right of kings has invariably resulted in a John of England, a Caligula or a Trump† who sets progress back generations. When we're lucky, it results in social movements away from religious decree and toward anthropocentric forms of leadership-selection.
So what do we do when God isn't telling us what to do (or we highly suspect scripture is really some ancient-era version of Dienetics)? We figure out better ways. This is where we delve into notions like utilitarianism or contractrarianism (see also, the Social Contract). Having been screwed over by God-ordained creedalism (deontological ethics when ethicists talk about them) we work out better ways. Trial and error. When oligarchs aren't trying to force us back into feudalism, they can work pretty well.
But another thing: We don't care. Even when we are devoutly religious. Even when we are ethicists, the human ape tends more to do what he (she) feels like doing, rather than what he believes he is morally obligated to do. Black churchgoers voted (mostly) for Clinton in 2016. White churchgoers voted (mostly) for Trump. They all felt justified. And even the wackos that raided the Capitol on January 6th felt they were entirely vindicated and justified in their assault. The religious leaders and political leaders of the US routinely engage in peculation despite their (alleged) upstanding moral qualities, and our religious gladly engage in partisanship when choosing who to forgive and who to condemn.
So without God telling us what to do we'd be... doing what we do now, most likely.
† Yes, Trump was elected, not appointed, but only though non-democratic means, and the religious blocs defied their own morality (trump's less-than-pure character and history, for which other politicians have been routinely condemned) as if it were a mandate from God. It was at least a mandate from their respective religious institutions, and blind obedience contributed to Trump's electoral victory.
On the post: Robinhood App Decides To Stop Helping The Poor Steal From The Rich
Not defending content moderation
TechDirt is known for complex, nuanced opinions that are consistent according to specific notions of policy. And its opinions occasionally even evolve with the times (e.g. Tom Wheeler is not a dingo.)
If state officials were more prone to enlightened self interest, (id est long-term interest) TechDirt would likely be less critical of them.
On the post: Robinhood App Decides To Stop Helping The Poor Steal From The Rich
Once more let me remind you what fascism is. It need not wear a brown shirt or a green shirt-it may even wear a dress shirt. Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power and special privilege. --Tommy Douglas
On the post: Robinhood App Decides To Stop Helping The Poor Steal From The Rich
Wow. The metaphors are getting transparent.
Henry Hamilton dumps a hundred-plus years into impoverished factory worker Will Salas who goes to New Greenwich and wins over 1000 years.
So this is the point where law enforcement officer Raymond Leon decides he's the wrong type of person to have so much, and confiscates it all.
Next >>