Is that any different to taking a day off work to go to a protest? Both situations have you losing money in order to bring issues to light. Same with union workers going on strike.
Yes, because here they not only lose money, but also all the money they lose is gained by the exact thing they protest against. It’s as if they went to protest Amazon by working at their warehouse for free.
Yes, it's different insofar as the money you're losing in this protest is going directly into the pockets of the group of people you're protesting against. Very illogical way to protest.
Please stick to the site guidelines, no matter how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. If we all work together we can avoid flamewar hell, which will keep HN interesting, which is in all of our interests.
I don't see it as quite over the same line. There's something about the snark in the comment I replied to which is a degree worse. The GP was baity but I don't see it as snarky. But I suppose it's close enough that different people could reasonably make a different call.
Hey dang. Just want to say I think the new community guidelines are great and you’re doing a good job moderating HN. I stopped coming here for a long time because it seemed every comment was snarky. Everyone was just so rude to each other. I’ve noticed that has dramatically improved! So, thank you.
IIRC, The American revolution was coordinated and funded by the existing colonial administrations, with aid from France. It was a secessionist movement backed by regional business interests in response to a reassertion of imperial sovereignty by a previously lax British government.
Something to be proud of, certainly. But not a grassroots thing, even if it did have some degree of popular support.
Calling it a secessionist movement isn't an apt characterization, which in US history calls to mind the Southerners' attempt to Secede from the USA. The revolutionaries, rather, considered themselves a number of independent colonies, coming together in opposition to British rule, where they were lacking in representation. They would not see themselves as "part" of Britain in a way the Southerners clearly were part of the USA.
In contrast, the South was fully represented in the Northern government, and Lincoln was quite conciliatory and kind to them when he was able. However, they were fighting for an extremely immoral cause, which the 1776 Revolutionaries were not really doing as the issue of slavery was much less an issue than in the 1850's.
That deal happened 2 years before the revolution. If you read the declaration of independence you'll find that it is very critical of that proclamation:
> The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted [...]
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
It wasn't the only thing that caused the insurrection of the colonies, but it certainly was a component.
Then maybe look outside your own borders for some other examples. The Arab Spring got great momentum from social media, and so do a lot of other efforts. Sometimes even bad efforts get momentum too. But it is possible to organize revolution via social media and other communication mediums.
I think they actually coordinated with vines posted to their myspace pages... but easier out-of-band communication does lead to more general awareness of the populace. The American revolution might've happened much more quickly - or not at all when the Americans saw Bostonians dancing around in racist indian costumes and compared the relatively minor tax to living conditions back in England proper.
>required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp.[1][2] Printed materials included legal documents, magazines, playing cards, newspapers, and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies, and it had to be paid in British currency, not in colonial paper money.[3]
The printing press was the social media of the 18th century. And just like then the powers that be have no idea what to do with it and are trying to put the Ginnie back in the bottle.
At least where I live in Maryland, being on "welfare" includes a cheap smart phone because a lot of jobs assume you have one for things like driving directions, getting signatures, taking pictures of receipts, etc.
Are you using different DNS servers? My work laptop was using 8.8.8.8 and is getting name resolution errors, but my personal computer is using 1.1.1.1 and working fine.
I think he's the outlier. Most people I know own 2 belts; one for casual clothes, one for dress pants. Shoes is normally casual shoes, work boots/dress shoes, hiking boots/running shoes, plus flip-flops or slippers. I think I've only met one man who had that many shoes, and he was really into fashion and collecting sneakers, so he had probably 50 different pairs to make sure he always had some that matched his outfit.
One way to make your clothes last longer is by checking to see how often you're supposed to wash them, and air drying them if possible. Things like jeans really only need to be washed a couple of times a year unless you're spilling stuff on them or being very active and sweaty in them. Growing up, the conventional wisdom was that you always had to wash something after it was worn once, and you were being a slob if you didn't (for some reasons hoodies were exempt), but it turns out that isn't true.
<Things like jeans really only need to be washed a couple of times a year
Biannual laundry might be taking it too far! Jeans don’t need washing every day, and I will often use the same ones for a couple of weeks, especially while WFH. But after a couple of weeks you might notice a bit of odor if you bring them close(ok most people won’t get close enough to smell your jeans). And they will noticeably loosen, wrinkle, and lose the more form fitting shape they have after a hot wash/dry.
Depending on how often you wear them, washing jeans once a month is probably about right. Remember that washing in itself is not actually that hard on clothes (provided you select the right temperature and program and don't use an old-fashioned top loader with an agitator), it's the dryer that really kills clothes, with all the dry heat and agitation. Line dry your clothes and they'll last much longer.
Another factor that may not be as relevant when working from home* is that general dust and dirt settles in and between the cotton fibers and act as abrasives. You can get a lot of that out by giving your jeans a vigorous shake out the window, but cotton is very absorbent and will hold on to dirt and grime, so it's a losing battle. If you never wash them, the wear will accelerate and ruin the fabric, especially in folds and creases.
As an aside, some of the "common knowledge" around jeans actually does apply to wool clothes since unlike cotton, the wool fibers have a hydrophobic outer layer, so they will repel dirt. Hanging wool clothes overnight and giving them a shake the next morning is often more than enough to refresh them, cabin luggage-only travelers love merino wool t-shirts for this reason, they can be worn for several days before needing a wash, without developing odors.
* Are people wearing jeans when working from home? As long as I'm staying inside, I'm wearing comfy cotton pajama pants and a hoodie or a robe all day, it's so comfortable. The real pants or jeans are only worn for going outside.
My jeans are part elastane too, but I honestly feel more comfortable in properly sized straight cut 100% cotton twill or wool(-blend) pants with no stretch, preferably with pleats. Elastane lets you get away with a fit that's really too tight.
But none those are even close to being as comfortable as pajama pants or sweatpants. When I'm lounging at home, I want nothing to bind or sit tightly, comfort is king.
Wearing a belt while sitting down puts a lot of pressure on your midsection, but even wearing suspenders (which I highly recommend), you still feel the waistband. Of course you get used to it, but why not just go straight for comfort?
I second your suspender recommendation (They're called braces in the UK). I find them much more comfortable than belts, and they work better than belts if you have developed a bit of middle-age spread.
They could just remove it if they can't tell, same way a bouncer will throw you out of a bar if you don't have ID.
I don't know why people are giving social media companies a pass on what goes on just because their job is hard. Nobody is holding a gun to their head and telling them that they need to run an unmanageable platform, they wanted this many users.
Maybe they do remove it if they can't tell. We don't know. Maybe they contacted the source of the video and they confirmed the age of the actors. Then what?
I didn't even know that Twitter had porn at all. It seems like it might be in their best interest to remove it altogether. There are sites that specialize in it, that I'd have to imagine are better sources for most people.
We do know, at least if we take the accuser's word as true:
> A support agent followed up and asked for a copy of Doe’s ID so they could prove it was him and after the teen complied, there was no response for a week, the family claims. (...) Finally on Jan. 28, Twitter replied to Doe and said they wouldn’t be taking down the material, which had already racked up over 167,000 views and 2,223 retweets, the suit states. “Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time,” the response reads, according to the lawsuit.
We still don't know what Twitter knows. It's not even clear if Twitter gave a more comprehensive reason.
That said, if we assume what the accuser said and implied is true, then Twitter was criminally negligent IMO (IANAL). But I guess we'll find out in court.
Depends on if it was actually toxic, or just full of people who want it to be toxic so they have something to fight against. I recently read a book by Alan Watts, and he said that one thing that liberal and conservative morality police have in common is that they don't actually want things to improve things, it's just the justification they use to try and control people. If either group were to "win", they'd just find some other cause to be upset about.
