I’m definitely making fun of the original post. “Your phone is bad and you should feel bad based on this cherry picked set of metrics” is one of the dumbest debates of all time. Right up there with “my OS is better than your OS”.

Let people like what they like.

But if we don’t make the kind of phone we use our entire identity how will we know who we’re totally better than?

The White House said in a statement it was “deeply disturbed” by the killing and seeking an Israeli investigation.

Waiting on “We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing”.

Being actively under indictment is a lot different than just being investigated. Indictment requires that sufficient evidence has been gathered, reviewed, and (for a federal case) at least 12 of 23 jurors in a grand jury believe there is at least a 50% chance that you have actually committed a crime (12/16 jurors at the state level).

By the time you have been indicted you have received a lot of due process resulting in a concrete belief that if you go to court you will be convicted of having committed a crime.

I appreciate your intent with this, but one of our fundamental rights is due process. Penalizing an individual for simply being investigated would violate that right.

I’m not sure I’m willing to participate in experimenting with a US government where due process is wishy washy. I remember how horny we got for suspending habeas corpus via the patriot act.

I assume if the client is undetectable that ads will escalate to phoning home for viewing confirmation, and then to something even more dumb once we beat that.

It’s an arms race, it’s probably silly to think we can just outright win for once and all.

That monster. Goosebumps was a foundational part of my lifelong love of reading.

The wall is almost certainly already some variation of Swiss coffee, which is like a drop of black and two drops of umber per gallon… juuuuust enough to give it a little color.

When I used to help people pick colors the primary advice I gave them was that once it’s on the wall you will never see the difference between the four shades of [color] you’re looking at because at scale your brain blends it in with the lighting and ambient color of the rest of the room.

Sheen makes more of a difference, and the answer is always satin/eggshell for living spaces and gloss for kitchens and bathrooms (because it’s more moisture resistant and washable). Flat can go fuck itself, it only exists as a cheap option for track homes who don’t care about your paint looking good for more than six months.

Source: worked at a paint store for several years, did a loooot of color matching by eye.

This is so common it has a name, it’s called banner blindness.

One of the important aspects of interface design is supposed to be not showing alerts for everything, so that when they pop up you feel compelled to pay attention.

Not long ago a nurse killed an older woman by giving her the wrong medicine; she took accountability but called out that the software they use provides so many alerts that (probably unofficial) policy was to just click through them to get to treating the patient. One of those alerts was a callout that the wrong dosage was selected and she zoomed right by it out of habit.

It’s hard to have a discourse on a topic if you insist that the scope of that topic must by default be infinite.

X isn’t being threatened with litigation because they’re freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses; they’re being threatened with litigation because they are a billion dollar business sustaining themselves by selling ads along with content that Brazil argues was misinformation and hate speech.

On the topic of freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses: it may be moral in some extreme examples to defy the government, but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.

I don’t think it’s the responsibility of X to know the laws of every country; I expect them to respect the wishes of other countries when it is brought to their attention if they want to continue doing business there.

Also, I think we both know that the misinformation we are talking about here has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The context of the linked article clearly indicates that harmful mistruths leading to harmful actions is the subject here.

I’m not sure why it’s so tempting to think of internet content as a special entity that defies otherwise established rules. Maybe it’s simply because no special effort is needed today to get the content across the border?

Regardless, we aren’t talking about your geocities page, we’re talking about billion dollar businesses. Would it be appropriate to take your physical storefront across international borders and insist that the government there should have zero say as to what products you sell? If not, why is it appropriate to do the same with web content? X is selling content in the form of ad distribution, countries should get to decide if that content is appropriate for distribution.