It is a bugbear for some, irregardless of when the first example was documented. Loose/lose has the potential to be such an annoyance. For some people.

The word “new” can carry a connotation of “recent” but it more literally implies “the latest version.” For all intensive purposes, I did not mean to imply the controversy about the metaphorical use of “literally” was a recent development.

This will literally be the new literally, I guess.

Spelling conventions have taken quite a hit in the age of automated subtitles. We’re devolving to the 1600s where this was more vibe based. I think there is also an element of wanting to show human frailty in content so no one suspects you of pushing slop.

But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.

In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.

Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.

My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.

Whether you like it or not, you have to abide by local laws. You can’t go to Pyongyang and exercise your first amendment rights either. The guy was warned and did this out of spite. Actions have consequences. Whether he just thought he was above the culture and norms as a tourist or whether he wanted to be a martyr for affected tourists everywhere really doesn’t matter. And his fate doesn’t infuriate me at all.

That being said the punishment itself is Draconian and not just mildly infuriating.

We also share half of our DNA with bananas. Therefore, we are also siblings of bananas.

If all you have for dinner is soup you get what you deserve.

The Scunthorpe problem strikes again.

There are laws and case law that make criticism of Israel harder than in other places. Post WW2 pro-Nazi and antisemetic speech was basically declared hate speech. Courts have taken a narrow view of what counts as antisemetic. There are in excess of six million reasons for that hard swing in the other direction.

So I would say the long version is this: you can criticize Israel but you need to pay close attention to how you say it. Criticizing the existence of the Jewish state is possible as well but you need to weigh your words even more carefully.

Moderators on an internet forum may take an even narrower approach to avoid any sort of legal trouble. And thus continues a chilling effect.

Freedom of speech is a tricky subject. Post WW2 the US had the influence to export their constitutional values, such as a first amendment, to Japan and West Germany. In both cases they punted. It’s not without some irony when I say opinions on how to establish freedom of speech in a democratic constitution vary.

If Lemmy is garbage, then why make a new account to whine about it on Lemmy?

You need to work on your anger management too. Your tone here has me thinking you were banned for a reason. Be respectful.

Call me cynical but I do think an outlet called oil price dot com may not be entirely impartial when they report on this. That is not to say what they wrote here is wrong; I wouldn’t know. It just has a touch of pot and kettle about it.

Since the power networks are linked and European countries import and export electricity, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that next to renewables power from gas stepped in to fill the nuclear gap. And the price for natural gas is often linked to a certain other commodity price.

How is this mildly infuriating? If this Weekend at Bernie’s vibe turns out to be true, that wouldn’t be mildly infuriating. If it’s the story of an evil politician clinging to life like dog shit to your sneakers, it also isn’t just mildly infuriating. And if it is the story of an old man surely not long for this world, this isn’t infuriating at all.

Your account is five days old. So I don’t think your message here carries a lot of weight unfortunately. That post is violating the community rules as well. And the account defended itself to not be a bot when no one accused it of that. So it’s probably not a great case to use to start a warm welcome campaign.

Former redditors should be familiar with something like forum rules and how to check them.

Sad.

Could it be the books are wrapped to protect against humidity? This may not be the whole reason why they do it but it wouldn’t be the worst one.

Since I signed up to Lemmy I think I’ve spent about 30 minutes in the All feed. 5 minutes just now to remind me why I don’t go there. You are your own algorithm. If all you subscribe to are meme communities, you ought to be able to drastically reduce political content in your personal feed. All and Local are for occasional excursions only.

I get she was frustrated. I get this was a joke. You don’t make bomb jokes in line at the TSA either.

She may have overestimated the degree of privacy her DMs had. That’s also on her. Other e2e encrypted services are available to make the crass jokes. But if one of the three recipients had also failed to get the joke, a Signal chat would’ve sufficed to get those deputies showing up as well.

And one shouldn’t expect that a company, even of dwindling importance as Snapchat, won’t do everything in their power to cover their asses. Imagine if this teacher did go amok and they flagged it but did nothing.

I kind of expect this sort of hidden ad shenanigans these days. Which I shouldn’t, of course. But as a result I find it more infuriating to have a link to the “article” next to the already opened very same “article.” Come on, algorithm! That’s just unforgivable.

Yes, I did hear that before.

Eff me, that wasn’t intended!

I am conflicted here. On the one hand, I agree that subtitles would have been nice. On the other hand, I think folks with hearing disabilities get shut out of other content so much that I don’t think this somewhat solitary case makes it good mildly infuriating material. It’s most likely just an oversight. Much less likely a clever scheme to highlight ableism.