Fare evasion doesn’t actively endager others, like speeding, so that’s not a valid comparison. Some people also literally can not afford a fare, but still need transport. Simply not speeding is basically ALWAYS an option for every driver. As for underage drinking, teenagers are immature idiots, that’s well known, I wouldn’t exactly consider “teenager do it too” a valid defense for negative behaviour of supposedly mature adutls. And underage drinking is a personal decision, that also doesn’t endanger anyone uninvolved in the activity.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit, and said “illegal things that endanger innocent third parties”, instead of just illegal, that was a indeed a bit too broad, I just felt it flowed better.

I don’t care if it slows down the legislative process, I am firmly of the opinion that all politicians should be legally required to take a short exam designed by experts on the topic of any legislation they want to vote on (including things like basic understandings of the concept and potential consequences, both positive and negative, of the legislation), and any politician who fails isn’t allowed to vote on that legislation.

Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to vote on legislation that they demonstrably do not understand.

Because fat and sugar are drugs. People don’t usually think of them like drugs, because of the widely accepted, but very wrong, attitude that only illegal substances can be drugs. Sugar, fat, caffeine, alcohol or tobacco are all drugs. They all trigger a desirable chemical reaction in your brain, and all have addictive potential. At least 2 or 3 of them are also significantly more harmful to you than several types of actually illegal drugs.

And in general, though perhaps most strongly for drugs, many people suffer from the cognitive bias of “illegal=bad & legal=good. Automatically and by default”

I like that you’re complaining about gaslighting whilst literally gaslighting me about my intentions. Just stop. I’m going to block you now anyway, for your own good more than mine.

People disagreeing with you and telling you your meme is shit is not psychological abuse, and it’s objectively fucking insane to claim it is.

Every reply you make like this literally just further reinforces and strengthens my point.

You’re not mentally suited for social media. Just stop, your mental health will thank me.

Just kinda proves my point, tbh. See previous reply.

Dude. Touch fucking grass and delete your account. Clearly you don’t have the mental fortitude to deal with social media without having some kind of break down.

This isn’t an insult, this is genuine advice. Getting this upset over the reception of a meme you posted is neither normal nor healthy.

I get this irrationally upset when I do badly at online competitive games. And that’s why I decided to stop playing them completely years ago. Maybe you should make a similar decision about posting on social media.

I’ve directly answered every single comment you made. Every single one. You’re literally just making shit up now. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith, and I’m not going to engage with you anymore. You’ve notably also yourself provided ZERO sources for any of your claims that disclaiment would’ve been the wrong choice. Your literal only source is “they didn’t chose it, and they couldn’t possibly have been wrong”. According to that dumb ass logic, expert financial analysts at Blockbuster deciding to not buy Netflix must’ve been the right decision.

Come back when you’ve learned to argue at a level above a C- high school student.

~~How the fuck can you people sleep at night while treating others like this?~

Dude. You’re reacting like someone murdered your mother to people down voting your meme, that’s not normal. Go touch grass.

You posted a link to a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t mention the arguments you made and just called it a “contemporary source”. I can’t take you seriously anymore, you’re arguing on the level of a C- high school student.

You’ve also literally not provided a single direct counter to ANYTHING I’ve said. Every single time I’ve pointed out something you said is wrong, instead of arguing you’re right, you just moved on a to a new argument. Until you ran out, and posted a generic milk toast response about reading a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t even mention the word “disclaim” or patent law, and only talks about the reasoning for making the patent public, not for choosing donation to a university over disclaimment. And then proceded to call the Wikipedia paragraph a contemporary source.

Also, half the arguments I made have nothing to do with specific patent law, they’re just objective facts, like that a university has no incentive to defend a patent they don’t want to enforce, beyond altruism, which exists equally as incentive to defend a disclaimed patent. That’s not a legal arguement, that’s an objective fact. Just like the fact that at no point in history has any PTO ever required a personal connection/patent to prior art to contest a new patent, because that would be dumb as fuck. It would literally mean that if the original inventor of a publicly known, unpatented/disclaimed invention can’t be bothered with the legal effort of defending it (or, ya know, died), there would be nothing stopping someone else from getting and inforcing the patent.

You were arguing just as vehemently about this, with just as much certainty, before that comment, which weirdly just happened to appear when you ran out of arguements.

Just a weird, coincidence I’m sure.

I think there’s two important questions here, that the article doesn’t mention at all.

A) did Russmedia include in their official t.o.s. that advertisments may not include sensitive personal data of anyone

and

B) if they did not, would it have voided liability if they had.

As long as a ban on sensitive data in user generated content by the platform, that is enforced in good faith, is enough to void liabilty, I agree with this decision. If the operator is not held liable on principle for user generated content, that effectively makes it entirely legal to operate and host a revenge porn website, as long as all the videos are uploaded by users. And I do think anyone who hosts public facing user generated data in any form absolutely should be legally required to enforce a ban on sensitive personal data. That doesn’t have to mean manually reviewing every single submission, but at minimum having the option to directly report content, and for the host to react in a reasonable time to such reports.

No it doesn’t. They’re explicitly NOT enforcing the patent, they have no incentive to defend it based on the patent being valid. They could just as easily sign a contract with the original inventor, promising to challenge attempts at repatenting the idea. The only reason validity of the patent would make a difference to their motivation, is if they plan on eventualyl enfocing it.

Yes there is. Anyone can contest a patent based on prior art existing, you don’t need any personal relation to the prior art, and having one doesn’t strengthen your legal case. The university would have identical legal power to contest the new patent, on basis of the existing disclaimed patent.

That logic applies identically to a valid patent. For the issues you mention, there is no distinction between the patent being filed at the PTO and still valid, or being filled at the PTO and disclaimed. In terms of the enforcibility, and patentability of a ““new”” inventions with prior art, there is no legal distinction whatsoever between the prior art being a disclaimed or a valid patent, so I don’t think that’s a valid reason to not disclaim it.

Anyone who wants to repatent the process and harass people using it, would have an equally hard/easy time doing so, if the patent is disclaimed or valid.

The only real legal distinction between a disclaimed and valid patent is that the orignal patent holder can’t enforce the disclaimed one. And since that was the intended goal here, disclaimment feels like the obvious best choice.

Pretty sure the entire reply is supposed to be satirising the dumb ass linked in culture, I very much doubt aynthing in the reply is genuined.

Even if it were true, far more children get killed by these stupidly oversized US pick up trucks, and those don’t have the benefit of protecting you from a dangerous disease. Don’t hear any of those anti vaxxers arguing that pick ups need to be banned.

It’s all just fake virtue signaling bullshit, these people genuinely do not give a shit about anyone but themselves.

What a dumb ass argument. Accordings to Al Quadas rules of engagement, the twin towers were a legitimate military target.

You don’t just get to decide yourself what counts at legitimate target, that’s not how any of this works.

Yes you can. And yet I bet you’ve ordered pre made food before, or food delivery.

You’ve probably bought plenty of things you could’ve done yourself for cheaper. You’ve probably hired handymen to do things like install washing machines, or movers to transport your stuff, or painters or roofers or cleaners. All of those things are cheaper to do yourself. Do you portray people paying for those things as idiots in memes as well ?

Convenience has value, and it’s not weird, or inconsistent or stupid for people to be willing to pay a premium on the convenience of someone else doing things, even if you could do them yourself. Especially because a large convenience factor is that if someone else does it, someone else is responsible for fixing it if it goes wrong.

So if I break my arm, and am in incredible pain, I need to first pop by my GP to get a referral, or pay 100€ if I go straight to A&E ?

I feel like needing a referral to got to Accident and Emergencies kinda defeats the whole point of A&E…