quirzle

Dumb.

Until some legal entity decides to raid the servers. Pray they do not keep logs of IPs. Though usually this may be (to some extent) a gray zone in some countries.

Can you give an example? I don’t think accessing a file somebody makes available has ever been an issue with copyright prosecution. They go after uploaders and hosts.

Even if they did, an IP in a server log isn’t definitive proof of an individual accessing something. However, I’m less confident of worldwide legal systems understanding that. Still, I’d be curious if there’s a single example of somebody being charged over accessing publicly accessible copyrighted files on the web.

I think it incredibly damaging in the long run to have 50% of active users on this platform to be centralized on one domain.

I agree, but 50% is still better than 100%. I definitely appreciate that I’m reading about this while being totally unaffected personally rather than just disappearing entirely like what happens with a banned subreddit.

Anyone whose purchased Russian oil in the past couple decades?

At least we could all collectively stop worrying about the climate stuff, right?

14 cans a day is a massive amount, and I didn’t say anything to imply otherwise.

I was agreeing with the guy I replied to that “a little poison is often fine” and elaborating that lots of things typically considered “safe” become dangerous in such large quantities.

But a little poison is often fine

Of course a little poison is often fine, if we use such a broad definition of poison.

If the definition of “poison” includes anything that can hurt you in massive quantities, that would include most drugs, plenty of vitamins, essential minerals, and even water if you take it to the extreme.

Diet Dew instead of coke, but otherwise spot on. I’ve done enough stupid shit that if fake sugar is what kills me, I’ve still managed to deny a few odds.

Fair enough; I wasn’t commenting on the idea one way or another, just trying to clarify what I thought the other commenter meant.

Personally, I’m almost never in favor of a ban. I’d rather tax heavily and use the income for programs to offset. I’m 20 years removed from optimism about reducing emissions, so I think we should be leaning into technology that can actively pull stuff out of the atmosphere. That could create an incentive to move away from flying but also use the flying that’s still happening to fund figuring out how to reverse the damage that’s already been done.

I think the point he’s making is that our second bullet of your list would make the third bullet unnecessary.

You don’t get to be a billionaire with just hard work and fulfilled promises.

The Venture Bros.