fragmentcity @ fragmentcity @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

32

Joined

2 yr. ago

The CEOs are not his audience, it's the people watching and reading about this in the news.

Or they both turn their backs on him and start pooping and eating at the same time.

You're winning an argument that no one is having with you, great job 👍

You didn't respond to the substance of my comment. Links to paywalled articles are trivial to paste into a site like archive.is. Archive sites are taken down all the time, it makes no sense to provide them as the primary source of a link.

You didn't really read or engage with any of my points, so I'll ignore your lecture about misunderstanding.

Don't put this on people posting links.

Use a browser extension if it's personally important to you, or just paste the link in yourself. Archive sites go offline; they shouldn't be primary link sources.

I would have upvoted this if it didn't have a pointless tumblr caption on it.

Way better with the last two panels swapped!

How many people who post JS BAD memes could provide a single example of why it's bad without looking it up?

The US left wing has a lot of great ideas and some really really terrible ones that are completely out of the mainstream.

That's probably specific enough, right?

So, so many questionable design choices. The lamppost raised 2ft off the ground, is that supposed to give us the impression of being on a neighborhood street? All the 90s tiling around it says otherwise.

What a tremendous asshole. Did the American people not need to know it BEFORE Trump was indicted for it?

Replacement is just one application. What about generating entire performances? Can't do it yet, but the data will be there when they figure it out.

The data is still going to be there when there's cost effective AI tech...

Everyone is having a bad time, in different ways. It's easy to notice things you personally relate to, and equally easy to overlook the many, many things that don't resonate with you.

my wife left her I carefully posed my wife's a purse on a chair

• Dump on tl;drs
• Subject your readers to a minimally-edited 4000 word rant

You get to pick one.

Malicious custom emoji contained scripts that sent session cookies to the attackers.

And here's where the mods turn to the camera with roguish smirks, because they weren't necessarily bluffing.

You know, I'd love to read things that are written to be read, not something that reads like the storyboard to PCG's video content for this item.

My cousin or my best friend or myself who might be gay or lesbian, any store they walk in they might get discriminated against because the Supreme Court says it’s OK

This is irresponsibly wrong, and I'm really surprised this is what you hear on a national network.

Breaking it down:

• The Supreme Court found that a Colorado law would violate the First Amendment as it's currently written
• The law says that businesses cannot deny any service to members of a protected class based on their membership in that class
• The business owner in question offers services that involve creating expressive works (protected by 1A)
• The Court found that Colorado cannot prohibit the owner from refusing to create an expressive work with a message they disagree with.

Here's what the Court did NOT find:

• Business can deny service to any person because they're LGBTQA.
  • This was not the question before the court, and in fact the business owner in this case stipulated that she already does not deny service to anyone based on their membership in a protected group.
• Businesses can refuse to create an expressive work for any person because they're LGBTQA
  • It's not the fact that the person is gay, but that the message of the requested work is objectionable to the owner. Colorado cannot compel expression, per the Constitution.

And yet Van Jones is out here embarrassing himself and misinforming people who are LOOKING for a reason to be angry. Be angry about the facts, if you must be angry about anything.

TBH I'm having a really tough time with this one. I'm not a lawyer, but there are competing Constitutional interests here:

• the state government wants to protect its citizens from discrimination by businesses within the state, which is a power it has (limited by federal law and the Constitution)
  • Importantly, it is NOT a violation of the couple's constitutional rights if the business refuses to serve them because they're gay. That's why the state law exists, because there's nothing covering this at the federal level.
• But in this case, the service is also a form of expression/speech by the vendor, which (religious or not) is constitutionally protected.
  • If the business in question was a plumber, there's no question the state law would apply; plumbing is not a constitutionally-protected activity.

So we have a state law compelling speech-based services from businesses in scenarios where the client is a member of a protected class as defined by the law. Who wins?

Keep in mind that the same decision also controls the hypothetical-but-plausible situation where the business owner is a person who supports LGBT rights, and who doesn't want to design a website extolling the exclusive virtues of a Christian heterosexual lifestyle for some highly religious prospective clients.

Of course a buck is a buck, and some designers would take that job because they wanted the money. But should they be compelled to make that site? I wouldn't think so, personally!

So that's a tricky angle. There's also the edge cases.

• Can a printing business refuse to print a poster design by someone else on their printers if they don't like the message of the poster? Probably not, because the service doesn't fit as easily into the speech/expression category
• What about a sign painter who doesn't write the text itself, just stylizes it? Is the creative expression still linked to the message?