Yeah every 10 years would be good even if you assume they did learn everything correctly the first time and don’t forget anything, just to make sure people are keeping up with changes in the law. I regularly still see people loudly sharing interpretations of the law on social media that haven’t been true for a decade. And then speed it up to every 5 years after 65 to additionally account for senescence.

Life expectancy is a useless metric for this purpose. Maybe it would be more useful if you used “life expectancy at age 10” (so after any childhood illnesses), but even then it doesn’t really say anything about what the process senescence looks like.

“recognising” a government seems to be tantamount to acknowledging that government is legitimate and representative of the people

I agree with your conclusion (recognition should be based entirely on who has Actual Control, in cases where that can be clearly determined), but not with this particular explanation. Nobody “recognises” Taiwan, but it has nothing to do with believing it’s illegitimate or unrepresentative. It has to do with the fact that China has a hissy fit if you do.

Removed by mod

In what world is suggesting one army should attack another army not a “call to violence”?

Your rulings are just complete nonsense. There’s no consistency. You’re just applying it based on your own whims. One of which seems, based on how you’re applying it, to be “genocide is ok when it’s done to brown people”.

So is saying “Ukrainian should beat the Russian army” “removable”, then?

Speaking of Russian propaganda, is saying “Russian soldiers invading Ukraine should be killed” also bannable?

anyone should be killing anyone else

Or, apparently, causing property damage 🤦‍♂️

But we’re not talking about killing people. We’re talking about killing an organisation. If someone had said “death to Apple”, that is not the same as “death to Tim Cook and all his employees”.

Wait, you can’t even say a group should be eliminated? Not even people, but a group‽

Is “defund the police” also a bannable offence now?

So I take it then, that any comment even vaguely in support of Israel will be removed as against the TOS? Because surely advocating in favour of genocide, even indirectly, is far worse than criticising the organisation actually committing that genocide?

Running shirts tend to be made of nylon or polyester. Unfortunately I tend to hang on to my clothes a very long time so all the tags are worn away and I can’t check, but I’m pretty sure all my running shirts are one of those.

Cotton is particularly bad because it chafes and it hangs on to sweat rather than wicking it away.

Of natural fibres, you probably want wool. I’ve particularly heard good things about merino wool. But avoid cotton for running.

Fuck that is an awesome design.

Shame it (a) appears to be cotton (not the material I want to be running in), and (b) is sold out.

Happy cake day!

They didn’t even do the most basic of work to attempt to put forward a front of journalistic integrity. They didn’t give Vylan a chance to respond to the article.

Yeah maybe. I’m not really sure whether 5 million years is enough time for the rest of the ecosystem to have evolved for their absence in such a way that their return would be disruptive. It’s a time frame long enough that I could think maybe it is, but short enough that I’d also not be too surprised to learn it isn’t.

The headline seems a stretch, considering their ancestors died out in Aotearoa millions of years ago, but it’s still interesting history.

“both sides”

One side is committing genocide.

The other side are an oppressed people fighting for their basic human rights.

Yes, there are civilian deaths on both sides, and that is lamentable. But to imply that it is anywhere near an equal conflict or that both sides are anywhere near equally to blame is completely ignorant of the facts.

Yeah I think this one became particularly tricky and wormed its way into a lot of people’s minds even who would otherwise be wary of it, because even Labor and the Greens stood in favour of it (with some minor tweaks), due to poor tech literacy.

Happy cake day!

I’d be happy for the Australian government to take them to task over this one. But I’m afraid you’ve fallen for Murdoch propaganda with the journalism thing.

They weren’t “using our journalism”. They provide a direct benefit to the news organisations. It’s a mostly symbiotic relationship, with people going to Google and Facebook because it’s a good way to find news that interests them, and news organisations being funnelled traffic directly to them for free. But honestly, if money should be flowing in any direction, it’s to Google and Meta. The financial benefit for news organisations of the existing relationship is far greater for news organisations than it is for Google and Meta. People would still be Googling things and sharing on Facebook even if news didn’t make up part of that.

Jeff Jarvis is a great thinker and communicator in this space, and he moderates a great discussion on the topic here. About 34 minutes into the video they hear from a QUT professor who is pretty scathing towards the NMBC.

I remember spending hours tinkering with Linux in my bedroom as a kid

I feel like the environment of subject-specific forums and IRC chat that Millennial geeks grew up with is very different from the centralised, generic, algorithm-driven social media that Gen Z grew up with, and non-geeky Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers adopted in the late aughts & '10s. That was really the best of what social media could do, with far fewer of the unhealthy downsides.