When your own soldiers come back to attack you: “Stop hitting yourself”

As a thin veil of excuse, the DCRI incident involved what they considered military secrets rather than defamation charges. Still dumb to do that extrajudicially, of course.

The article on the lawsuit is blocked, which is standard procedure for participants of an ongoing lawsuit: Talk to your lawyer about it, and nobody else, because anything you say without your lawyer’s counsel might jeopardise your legal position. Even if it’s just people editing that article, the foundation will want to protect itself until the matter is settled.

Don’t forget that non-profits, too, are beholden to laws. If they want to continue offering their services in India, they don’t really want to be charged for contempt on top of the other case.

People here prefer the federation of Mastodon

Maybe even a cognitive

I love þat you’re trying to bring ðe þ and ð (back) into English.

I browse all a lot to look for interesting new communities. Every now and then I come across a new community from ani.social, the NSFW instance or something, and on Voyager I can’t seem to block entire instances. I also don’t know if there’s a way to filter only the communities without blocking the users too, but as it stands, I may have to look for another app to block the instances entirely.

Shouldn’t, definitely. But for a while, it will keep running, because that’s how a lot of speculative investment works.

It can! For a while. Isn’t that the nature of speculation and speculative bubbles? Sure, they may pop some day, because we don’t know for sure what’s a bubble and what is a promising market disruption. But a bunch of people make a bunch of money until then, and that’s all that matters.

Oh believe me, I would change some things about that database if I could. Alas, I’m just the analyst building data models from it.

(To be fair, it’s otherwise easy to work with and for most use-cases, it doesn’t matter since they’re aggregated per month anyway, so I just load the last month’s data on the 2nd of each month. I definitely have worse patients to operate on.)

The ball was a blue pool ball, on a wooden table that I can’t describe because I suck at describing things (but I do have a visual of it). I didn’t even imagine the person beyond the hand coming up to push it off.

The ball color might have been decided on the moment I read the question, I’m not sure whether it was part of my image before that. Person is still nondescript even after trying to “zoom out”. I just can’t seem to come up with it.

Unrelated to the topic, but I deal with a database storing timestamps.

In local time.

For systems all around the world.

You’ll see current entries timestamped 12:28 from eastern Europe followed by ones 6:28 from America and then another 11:28 from central Europe.

Without offset.

You can, but why would you? Reality has enough examples to make fantasy obsolete

Jesus is the son of god

I always hated this sentiment. I don’t think sons should automatically inherit their fathers’ sins. Jesus seemed to be a mostly cool dude, albeit with his own human flaws (including the common blindness to his father’s abusive nature) and it really doesn’t seem fair to lump him in with his dad.

Pretty sure the Nazgûl use stabby weapons, where chainmail is less effective (not completely useless, but an unlucky thrust may split the rings).

who aren’t […] fucking children.

This works on two levels. One is embarrassing, the other horrifying.

I’ll take the right thing for the wrong reasons over the wrong thing for even worse reasons.

I mean, if you ignore the parts about giving away your wealth, being a good samaritan, looking for fault in yourself before criticising others, more stuff about collecting treasures in heaven instead of on earth, humility and patience in the face of adversity, honesty, forgiveness, even more stuff about throwing out moneylenders and people making money from religion…

Basically, take away the entire gospel and a solid chunk of the epistles, focus on the “If I regularly ask for forgiveness of whatever unspecified sins I might have committed, Im a good person and won’t burn in hell like all these bad people”, squint a little, account for a margin of human error, and he does look a bit like a Christian!

But if I have nothing of substance to add to the point? “This. Also…”? I don’t have a Cybertruck or know anyone that does; I can’t comment on their quality.

Besides, it wasn’t even particularly important to me, just a quick aside. If I care deeply about making people use “they” for inclusion reasons, I’d have written more than a sentence.

I’m not sure they ever doubled down on it.

They didn’t. Hence my insistence: the original comment probably wasn’t intentional as such, nor do I ascribe any malice.

Plenty other people felt the need to ascribe intent, however. That’s what I don’t understand - why are people so eager to defend a phrasing and potential intent without ever consulting the original commenter?

I just don’t want to limit how people express themselves

I made a suggestion and argument why I find “they” better, without ideological insistence or being forceful about it. There’s no limiting going on.

Its more important to me that someone express themselves honestly rather than they are politically correct.

The above note and specific context aside, I don’t categorically agree. While reasonable argument should be the first resort, there are honest sentiments rejecting reasonable argument that deserve no expression, no space and no opportunity to spread hateful rhetoric. I think it’s more important to foster a tolerant environment, suppressing intolerance if necessary to preserve that environment, than to grant universal freedom even to enemies of freedom.

Again, this probably doesn’t apply here - I doubt the original comment made a point of exclusion. We’re getting way off topic here when all I wanted was to offer an alternative argument for inclusive phrasing.