I want to be clear that I am being completely sincere when I ask, does this mean that saying "Joe Biden is acting like a fascist autocrat", is ok, but applying it as a title, as in "Joe Biden the Fascist Autocrat" is not?
If so, I will hew to that distinction, but I want to be perfectly clear about the actual expectations; if the former is also an issue, I would like to know that now.
I understand that the Spirit of the Rules is meant to avoid generally drawing these kind of hard lines, because that allows bad-actors to attack community members and at-risk groups by toeing the line of rules, but Joe Biden is neither a community member nor part of an at-risk group, and being required to Bee Nice to Joe Biden as though he were (going off of a Spirit of the Rules interpretation), feels uncomfortably close to not being allowed to criticize the arguably single most powerful and advantaged person in the world (especially since he is currently being criticized for the harm he's doing to at-risk groups).
To clarify as another Beehaw user, are "fascist" and "felon" in fact being objected to here, or only the use of "fuck" as a noun/name?
I easily understand the latter as name-calling, as it's purely an invective, but the former 2 don't make sense to me as being violations of Bee Nice.
That seems to be veering into the realm of toxic positivity, if we can't call a person doing fascistic things a fascist, or a person doing felonious things a felon.
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with... the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom...
Martin Luther King Jr.
“Dissent is essential for democracy,” Biden said at the White House. “But dissent must never lead to disorder.”
He largely sidestepped protesters’ demands, which have included ending U.S. support for Israeli military operations. Asked after his remarks whether the demonstrations would prompt him to consider changing course, Biden responded with a simple “no.”
I'm sure college-age voters are going to love that...
"Hey, do you care about what young voters want?" "No."
They've chosen their side, and it's not that of truth or the US citizenry, it's as a propaganda mouthpiece for the leaders of the US/Israeli war machine.
I legit have been considering buying a minidisc player, just for the sheer cool factor of them. Sometimes truly special form is lost as function evolves.
With Thursday’s party-line vote, the FCC redefined internet service as similar to legacy telephone lines, a sweeping move that comes with greater regulatory power over the broadband industry.
Leading FCC officials have said restoring net neutrality rules, and reclassifying ISPs under Title II of the agency’s congressional charter, would provide the FCC with clearer authority to adopt future rules governing everything from public safety to national security.
“Broadband is a telecommunications service and should be regulated as such,” said Justin Brookman, director for technology policy at Consumer Reports. “The Title II authority will ensure that broadband providers are properly overseen by the FCC like all telecommunications services should be.
“These 400-plus pages of relentless regulation are proof positive that old orthodoxies die hard,” said Jonathan Spalter, CEO of USTelecom, a trade association representing internet providers.
My god the fucking irony. The trade association made up of Broadband ISPs, arguing that they shouldn't be regulated as Telecom providers, is literally called... USTelecom.
"Don't treat us like ducks!" said the trade association representative from USDucks.
Everyone in the world (except for Russia, with their 'special operation' euphemism) recognizes the invasion of Ukraine as a war. People are still pretending that Israel bombing targets inside Iran and Iranian military units in other countries, and Iran launching a large-scale missile strike against Israel, isn't a war. It's no longer a proxy war, it's a direct conflict, but because people are still stuck in exactly that mode of thinking- that 'war' means artillery and troops and taking ground- people are treating this as something else.
I don't think the author is correct that war won't still look like the WW1/2 paradigm of conflicts as well, but as of right now there are 16 countries involved in the Israel/Iran not-war:
Direct involvement:
Israel
Iran
US
UK
Syria
Iraq
Jordan
Yemen
Lebanon
Logistical involvement (including intelligence sharing and air defense deployment):
Kuwait
UAE
KSA
Qatar
Oman
Djibouti
Bahrain
I think the salient point is that the US's insistence that they/we're not yet in a war is a lie designed to both avoid blame being put where it belongs (Israel's genocide of Palestinians, and the US's involvement, that kicked this all off), and to temper calls for more action to stop the war, which will require stopping Israel in Gaza.
By calling for preventing a war, the US is attempting to blame future actions, whereas if they acknowledge we're already in a war, they'd have to admit that it's because of actions that already took place, and the US wants desperately to make Iran the bad guys here, and claim this has nothing to do with Israel doing war crimes both in Gaza and in Lebanon.
How do we welcome these contributions while lowering risk?
Why do the people using LLMs to modify a project need to make a PR back to the remote branch? Why can't they keep their 'weird' contributions on their own personal fork and use as they like?
If the answer is that they don't have the knowledge to build the app in order to test if the code works before submitting a PR, they shouldn't be submitting a PR in the first place. Code contributions come with an expectation of due diligence on the part of the submitter, to ensure that their code is not breaking anything or introducing obvious bugs and vulns (and of course, that it even works at all).
Democratizing coding means making the knowledge of how to do it more readily and freely-available, not having a computer spit out something that someone doesn't understand, and then telling that person, "congratulations, you're a code contributor".
People are submitting LLM generated code they don’t understand right now. How do we protect repos?
By not accepting PRs that do not properly meet contribution guidelines, like having tests that provide reasonable code coverage, etc.