throwawaysugar

7 ms·

1.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Except this is a comment section for discussion, so it's appropriate to discuss and point out this issue which IMHO contaminates nearly all forms of media today.
2.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
It's way too good a word to be left unused! ;-) That whole episode is hilarious tbh
3.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
> Not saying dang never blocks users/comments, but it's exceedingly rare and I've only seen it for the most obnoxiously egregious behavior after (usually multiple) warnings. Issuing warnings or reminding people of the guid
4.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Article 287 is in the Penal Code, not in the Constitution. The constitution is the top dog in the legal hierarchy. The Penal Code is pretty high up there and trumps thinks like local laws. Some laws are written in such a way that, eventuall
5.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Politically, yes, you can say that in Brazil today. But legally speaking that's not allowed...
6.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Accuracy and impartiality are not the objective. It's ad revenue.
7.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
> That is unless the individual is considered a flight risk from Brazil. Although normally even if you are considered a flight risk you often just have to turn in your passport and wait for your trial at home, IIRC
8.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
It exists for some value of "computer"
9.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Don't ignore the "or a fine". A situation like you described doesn't commonly result in any jail time (or in any fine, tbh) Besides, I'd wager even if the whole state hated you, you would clearly be protected in tha
10.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
I think you're touching on various different issues like fraud, false advertising, racism, etc. so there's no clear answer. You would need to pick a specific case for someone to weigh in on. The Wikipedia article on freedom of spe
11.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
> All of human progress has happened through open discussion; i thought this was obvious. We gain immunity to bad ideas by hearing them within public areas where people can argue for and against them honestly. This leads to people gaini
12.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
> Ah yes the judge. Who decides when I see her? Another judge decides when you see the judge that will try your case. > Do I just sit quietly in jail until then? No, you can have your attorney file an habeas corpus to either have your
13.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
> Brazil has been on a slippery slope regarding free speech. Citation needed. Free speech is not an "unlimited right" in Brazil (I'd argue it's not an unlimited right in the U.S. either, but that's not necessar
14.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
> Free speech is a natural human right. It is, but it is not the paramount human right. Other rights, like "life" trump "liberty". One may argue that certain instances of "hate speech" encourage actions agai
15.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
To whom?
16.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
False dichotomy. The choices aren't "100% open" or "great firewall of $country". This happens all the time in every country.
17.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
> Who determines what is considered a race? Who decides what’s “racist”? Who decides when the “no racism” law is enforced? The judge. Feel free to argue your case in court. No law is black and white. Judges and juries get to decide on
18.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Then a judge gets to decide whether it's enough to infringe the law or not, as is the case in all legal matters (except sometimes that is the role of a jury or arbiter, to be pedantic) Context is key. IANAL nor a judge, but I think say
19.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
What? None of those are cogent arguments. > The value of maintaining current discrimination is high enough to motivate laws protecting racists from exposing themselves publicly. A law that punishes racist speech doesn't protect ra
20.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Brazil doesn't have "free speech" in the same way as the US does. Many countries don't, actually. For example, racism is a punishable offense in Brazil. You literally cannot say "I hate <insert race>". Th
21.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
22.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Having been using Firefox for years, I don't think I'm missing out on anything. I wouldn't trade my privacy for bleeding edge features
23.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
None of those are actual answers to the criticism posted by the parent, so it's hard to really care even if it's wrapped around a loving tone. Happy holidays to you as well!
24.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
> You're allowed to be a cheerleader for your company. You're not really allowed to knowingly cheer for a company you know to be 100% vaporware. That's fraud.
25.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Makes sense, sorry... I hate PowerShell tbh. I just googled/ChatGPT'd that!
26.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
In my experience, becoming a go-to person gets your boss promoted. This was the case in 100% of my roles, until the very last one, when I refused to become this person....and my boss was fired. Sadly through that process my role was orphane
27.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Winkey+R and then powershell -Command "& {Invoke-WebRequest -Uri 'https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-latest&os=win64&lang=en-US' -OutFile 'Firefox.exe'}" Not sayin
28.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
A more charitable interpretation is poaching ONE such employee out of all your customers. It's not a criminal act, IMHO. Managers of any company that think they can't afford to lose a single employee are doing something wrong and
29.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
Link to the finals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDGdPE_C9u8
30.
by throwawaysugar 3y ago
> You have a really angry model of the politics in this country, and seem to lack respect for the political stances. I'd argue politics in this country is angry and seems to lack respect for opposing political stances. I found the p

More ›