Didn’t it ultimately achieve its aim with the creation of Lower Decks?

Honestly I hope it shuts down. This provider caters to racists, fascists, misogynists and the like.

Who gives a fuck? Corporate social media cater to idiots too, just more common varieties.

Why does it matter what Kanye tweets about if I enjoy his music? Why do the politics of my favorite FOSS program’s maintainer matter, or what commentary they include in documentation, or the presence/lack of a flag in a social media handle? Why does it matter that a public demonstration I’m at has some fellow demonstraters whose lifestyles/politics I find abhorrent?

All you advertise to the world with this fearful mindset is that your behaviour will change on a dime given the slightest chance of bad optics. It’s a rotten way to live life.

Governments and marketers absolutely love people who think like that.

talking points like, “why don’t women look feminine aymore,” “why are characters designed for diversity/inclusion first before story,” “Concord sucks lol.”

They’re fair observations. Convergent, homogenous graphic design plagues big-budget game production.

Ubi is the sort of mob that could put out a title set in Georgian England and offer a cast that includes among others a queer green-haired ship’s captain, a Chinese bailiff and a Rastafarian archbishop. There’s a place for getting whimsical with character creation, but done often enough (and across so many genres), it becomes self-satirizing.

PS also check out https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/991452-pixel-pirate-ii-attack-of-the-astro-elvis-video-clone

My theory is Uncle Sam’s fingerprints are on high east coast gas prices. Giving it away for nothing has to put pressure on Russia’s LNG export income. The donkeys that head Origin, etc. are on board because they can gouge the home market as compensation, knowing (as part of the deal) that Canberra won’t contemplate a reservation policy.

TNG 3x03 The Survivors. Trek works just as well when introspective personal drama gets priority over the science fiction.

One of these days I’ll post my maiden TNG viewing notes…

Lots of banned artist and album names that will return zero results, unless you do something like search for a song or two that’s on the album you want and finding the data that way.

The only objectionable hurdles are the insurmountable ones

Last Christmas I gave a family member a flash drive containing ~10 high quality movie encodes, basically a shorlist of the year’s personal highlights I reckon they’d enjoy too. I don’t know if they’ve used it, but I’m going to make a habit of it until I hear otherwise. A drive for a handful movies is cheap enough to not worry about if it’s never seen again. Give them a large capacity drive however, or access to a Plex server, and paralysis of choice occurs.

Look everyone, it’s the season 37 opener of I’m not going to use the great tool because people I don’t like are also using the great tool!

Australia tried this in the early noughties I believe - running a non-public URL blacklist. After some parliamentary accountability and commmitees got it cracked open, they found that about 10% of the sites met the definition for inclusion, with the remainder being a grab-bag of things various politicians and bureaucrats didn’t like.

Private torrent content escapes naturally because it’s often shared on other P2P tools in use by the peers.

What makes you think Signal is maintaining relationship maps, and secondly, even if it is, is there any evidence they’re included in LEO subpoenas?

Articles like this come off as glib. Aviation is a dreadful industry for all involved.

I don’t understand when these companies are going to learn that sharing their IP is going to get them more money than being so fractured.

The risk equation makes sense. The potential gain from outlasting your competition and absorbing their subscriber bases to become a near-monopoly is higher than participating in a royalty scheme, and the downside is borne by shareholders and to a lesser extent creditors (the Other People’s Money principle).

These breach incidents all serve to highlight the lack of a solution for patients that want to retain ownership (ie. exclusive control) over their data. Currently the only effective way to do that is a non-solution - by not interacting with the service at all.

Imagine there was one copy of your health information, and it was encrypted, and it lived on a server/flash drive/device under your control. In order to receive treatment, the provider has to access that source and request your permission or authenticate in some capacity. That would be an enduring, user-respecting solution that showed people that each loss of data was more than merely a publicity nightmare for the abetting company. Managing personal healthcare like this isn’t for everyone, but it should be an option for patients with the means and inclination.

The fact that service providers neither want to co-operate with something like this, nor are required to by law, is a problem. There’s currently no individual agency permitted whatsoever in this domain and I’ve been fed up with it for a long time.

I’d like a phase-out of the data broking industry. Just like live sheep export, it’s inherently odious and shouldn’t be a thing, and is only capable of causing harm. But something tells me governments won’t get around to it unless it becomes a lot more politicized.

My ability to stick the boot in on Blahaj-hosted posts is a bit like mods being able to ceaslessly whinge about their voluntary role being thankless/hard to prosecute. It’s really really really important :^)

‘Anti-religious comment’ accurately describes my scenario. Anyone who dislikes the hypothetical critique can simply hit the report button and it will get wiped if Rule 4 is read at face value.

If the mod team on this instance is going to be that prescriptive around how religion is mentioned, then they’re better off just blanket-banning any mention of it altogether, like on Whirlpool.

If you’re a <insert faith>, and in the natural course of discussion people start criticizing ideas that inform <insert faith>'s beliefs and ethics, that’s not a personal attack. It’s not ‘bigotry’ on the basis that you disagree. It’s not ‘trolling’ purely because it made you upset.

I’m going to separately post the famous Charlie Hebdo cover in this thread, the one published after Muslim extremists murdered their people over cartoons. If this instance is so straitjacketed by Australia’s ridiculous lawmaking in this area that it cannot tolerate such a post, then it’s not a forum for adults.