Thanks. I think I have some history of art to read before I understand much of that, but I know where to start now :)
MartianSands
joined 2 years ago
I've been seeing these comics for a while now, but I still feel very out of the loop.
WTF am I reading?
Do you imagine that everyone posting things like this just hasn't thought it through, or that they believe killing that CEO will save any specific person?
If so, I think you've misunderstood something quite fundamental. The overwhelming majority who are celebrating this assassination are doing so because they hate that CEO and everything he stood for.
You don't get to brush them off as idiots for failing to realise something you consider obvious when you're the one who seems to be missing the point.
Beside which, if you interpret this business with the other insurer suddenly cancelling their plans to limit what they'll pay for anesthesia as suddenly fear of reprisal then this assassination will absolutely save lives in the long run, and save others from life-long financial ruin
Presumably they stopped doing it in those states, or it's being appealed or something.
Also possible they're just ignoring a court order, I suppose, but that seems unlikely
I'm not specifically saying that this particular case isn't murder, but if the quote we're all responding to is accurate then there's explicitly a way it could be considered "not murder". I know absolutely nothing about the relevant law, but legal definitions not quite matching common sense definitions is the case more often than not, I think
On the colloquial sense, sure, but it's entirely possible (and would be hilarious) for the legal definition not to agree
Fire safety and maintenance access, probably.
Theoretically it also requires any company which is subject to GDPR not to send any data to third parties who aren't, but I honestly don't know how well enforced that is
I really think demanding all platforms allow you to post content which is viewable to the general public except for specific individuals is naive.
If the default position is that people can see the content, then excluding a few individuals is an exercise in futility
Really? They don't use TLS at all? That sounds hilariously insecure
No, it couldn't. That's pure misinformation.
Kessler syndrome is only a possibility in orbits high enough that atmospheric drag is negligible. Starlink, by design, is at an altitude where the atmosphere is still thick enough to bring any debris or old satellites down to earth in a timely fashion rather than building up like Kessler syndrome requires. (To be clear, the air is still so thin that you'd need sensitive instruments to detect it at all. It's just enough to produce a tiny amount of drag, which adds up over weeks or months to lower the debris' orbit so that it meets thicker air)
There are plenty of perfectly legitimate objections you can raise to starlink without resorting to Kessler syndrome
Everyone describes the rebels as "Islamist", but since Assad's regime is/was islamic as well it's a very strange choice of labels.
You wouldn't call them that unless it was either a useful way to differentiate them, which it doesn't seem to be, or to manipulate the way people feel about either the rebels or Islam