• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • The way the text here it phrased, it sounds like McCarthy wronged the Democrats by giving them nothing, and they’re getting him back by letting him go. But the article makes it clear that they asked for nothing and he expects nothing from them, and respects that.

    No need to imply animosity and back biting between McCarthy and the Dems that isn’t there.

    It’s more like “you do your thing, we’ll do our thing, and that’s OK, no matter how it turns out.”

    Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that he would not give Democrats anything in exchange for their votes to help save his Speakership, after Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) moved to force a vote on ousting him.

    “They haven’t asked for anything. I’m not going to provide anything,” McCarthy said in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

    “Hakeem runs his conference,” McCarthy said of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). “He’s going to have a conference, and everybody’s going to talk about it, and I’m not going to put Hakeem in any position, and I respect whatever decision anybody makes.”




  • So apparently they really suck at it? That’s kind of hilarious

    The trolls have demonstrated a weak command of idiomatic English with articles that, while prolific, often misspell key names or use English and Mandarin interchangeably. Other posts — like a critique of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s August 2022 trip to Taiwan — appear long after the events they purported to preview.

    At other times, the spammers attempted to push niche and esoteric Chinese propaganda talking points onto unreceptive audiences by piggybacking on clickable search engine optimized headlines. In one case cited by Meta researchers, Spamouflage Dragon trolls filled the replies of social media forum questions like “How do I lose belly fat through weight lifting?” with propaganda articles about “Chinese Police Strengthening International Law Enforcement Cooperation.”

    They don’t mention what the propagandists push about COVID. The usual line from weirdo propagandists is that COVID is a secret bioweapon and was released from the Wuhan labs intentionally. I assume China wouldn’t sign on to that one? Do they just push the scientific consensus, which is that the origin is unknown but is probably natural, and possibly an unintentional lab leak? Or an exaggeration thereof which completely discounts the lab leak theory but still asserts what is most probable – it’s from animals? That’s pretty weak sauce for propaganda. Maybe they push some nuance about COVID that only the Chinese government cares about. Or maybe they go buck wild and say it was developed by NATO biolabs in Ukraine.








  • So the idea is that because FTX and Yuga Labs were all mixed up in each other’s business, and because FTX was secretly the buyer of the Bored Apes, then functionally this was a giant wash trade, one step removed. A sham auction whose purpose was to blow up the price of NFTs, and Sotheby is supposed to be culpable because they participated in the sham and lent it legitimacy with their reputation.

    That seems like a pretty legit complaint.

    I mean, I have no sympathy for the people who got fucked buying NFTs but I have even less sympathy for the people who did the fucking, so absolutely let this lawsuit happen and let them burn.



  • this has nothing even remotely to do with patents, fam

    but it is indeed bullshit.

    the purpose of a “trademark” is to prevent the public from being deceived about what they’re purchasing, so you can’t sell “Big Macs” on your own because the public might be deceived into thinking they were purchasing a product from McDonalds, which (I assume) has trademarked the use of “Big Mac” for fast food.

    I HIGHLY doubt the Linux Foundation owns the trademark for “Segmentation Fault” with respect to random merch, so… yeah 100% bullshit

    (The image does also say “Linux IP” in addition to “Linux Trademark” and I wonder what the hell that is supposed to mean, since “IP” covers a multitude of dissimilar things, maybe it’s just a vague handwavy assertion they make in order to make a takedown without particularly justifying it?)



  • You can still make websites, fam. And you can go to websites other people have made. Nothing ever changed there. You just left it behind and went onto social media.

    Also if you’re banned from a place, you’re not in a “void that is inescapable,” you’re just not in that place anymore. You can go to other places. If you think not being on a particular piece of social media is a “void that is inescapable,” you’ve decided that everything outside that social media system is a “void,” and that’s on you.


  • The takeaway from this article, IMHO, isn’t “Facebook did something terrible” so much as “when you live in a world where the government is terrible, services which compromise your privacy can be exploited against you.” It no longer becomes a matter of “advertisers have access to my intimate details” but “people with the power to jail me unjustly have access to my intimate details.”

    I mean, it’s reprehensible for Facebook to have done that, but we kind of never expected them to be the good guys. It’s more “the compromise of our basic privacy is more dangerous than you might have thought when it was just being used to advertise to us.”