Huh? What are you even trying to say with this comment?

Damn. Angela Collier getting downvotes? Wtf is wrong with all these people. There could not have been a more relevant and helpful response explaining the situation, especially in light of @Varyk@sh.itjust.works’ rather shallow question that seemed to indicate a lack of understanding of the full context here…

Bezos deserves most of it, but I think there’s more than just misogyny that has lead to this particular flight’s passengers receiving a lot more criticism than Shatner did. And it’s that Shatner was visibly moved by his experience and you could tell that he didn’t feel good about Bezos interrupting his attempts to share that, so Bezos could use him as a pawn.

The ladies on this flight seem to have been chosen and instructed specifically to give the most vapid shallow responses possible. And upon returning, that’s precisely what they delivered.

Oh yes, I see now. You posted 683’s solution into 684’s thread!

I try to get these posted up at 2 pm local time. Any later than that and especially people further east than me will start missing out on opportunities to participate. That’s 4 am UTC, so Europeans are barely affected, and it’s 8 pm US Pacific Standard Time the day before, so in the worst case, Americans don’t have to wait very long before they can participate. It does leave a very small window where Americans need to pay attention to posting in the right thread, but IMO that’s a lot less of a problem than if the thread goes up too late as it usually does if posted at a time that’s most convenient for Americans.

I have literally never seen that.

The truth is, the definition has to be arbitrary. There’s no distinct point at which there suddenly goes from being atmosphere and therefore Earth to being no atmosphere and therefore space. The Kármán line is chosen because it is a nice round number roughly where aerodynamics stop being useful in planning spaceflight missions.

Fwiw Occam’s razor is actually a little more precise than “choose the simplest explanation”. Specifically, it defines what “simplest” actually means, in such a way that makes it easier to see how you could describe Hanlon’s razor as a special case of Occam’s.

Occam’s razor is that you should choose the solution which requires the fewest assumptions. Assuming someone made a mistake is precisely one assumption. That they were acting maliciously requires several, including having the motive to do it and, in a case involving large organisations, having the capability to cover it up.

Imma be honest, I don’t know what they said either, but in part it’s because your comment that they’re replying to didn’t make sense.

“Humans” nor “Americans” are a group that espouse moral authority.

This doesn’t scan at all.

They did reach space, as defined by a relatively arbitrary international agreement.

But yeah, passengers are not astronauts any more than I’m a pilot for buying a ticket on Air Asia to KLIA2.

In a completely unrelated thread, I just know read a user say the following:

As part of that group, you own ALL their bad behavior, because your group doesn’t do anything to remove that element from the group.

I actually don’t entirely agree with it in the context it was presented. It’s hard to “remove” someone from an informal ideological association (though at the least, some members of the ideology should denounce others as necessary rather than remain silent).

But in this context, I think that quote works perfectly. It’s a formalised political party. By being a member of the party, and especially by being a candidate for that political party, every one of their members are explicitly expressing agreement with the party’s methods.

If one Labor candidate decided to put Family First ahead of the Greens, we would widely say that reflects badly of Labor as a whole. We wouldn’t excuse Labor Left because it was a Labor Right candidate who did it, we’d say that Labor Left chooses to remain unified with the ALP and in so doing they have endorsed Family First above the Greens.

We can acknowledge that they might have disagreements behind the scenes and work towards improving, while also believing it valid to tar them with the same brush that their party’s public actions have crafted.

but I can’t preference him above The Greens guy because it’s not at all clear why he is running or what he stands for

Yeah I think it’s a complicated nuanced situation because there are multiple separate issues going on here. One is the ambiguity created by multiple separate parties merging into one party but semi-retaining their separate identities. Another is exactly what those individual constituent parties might stand for (just how libertarian are the Pirates, anyway?). And a third is the degree to which individual members should be held to account for the actions of the party as a whole, or other members of the party.

But that’s what this is about. Cafes and restaurants replacing or supplementing paper menus where you order by telling a person what you want, with digital menus where you order by going through the online system.

wtf is purple

I don’t follow. I found it pretty straightforward, and even if you didn’t get it, isn’t the explanation once it shows you the answer pretty clear?

Connections
Puzzle #684
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟩🟩🟩🟩

Skill 96/99
Uniqueness 1 in 350

I can’t believe it. I found purple first, and it was so easy I never even considered it could actually be the purple.

Moving the water eco upgrades down an age is going to be huge for the importance of going to water earlier.

I’m really glad to see the Tail of Fei relic removed from ranked games. It was just so much more powerful than other “give a unit” relics.

It’ll be interesting to see exactly how the new event challenge system works. I didn’t feel like I got a good sense of it based on the description here.

I’m familiar with the court case I assume you’re referring to, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how it could possibly apply here.

The court declared that, as a matter of law, any other laws that refer to women can only refer to cis women. Or maybe cis women and trans men. Something I think we here can all agree is a grotesque example of judicial activism of a sort we’d normally only expect out of the US. Certainly not a reasonable interpretation of the law as written.

But that ruling is just about interpretations of existing laws on things like gender discrimination. Gender discrimination law literally doesn’t even come into the conversation here, because we’re not discriminating or allowing anyone on the basis of gender, only on the basis of their behaviour. The court ruling didn’t change your right to moderate based on behaviour in any way.

I have no idea if UK law permits moderation on the basis of political beliefs, but I have to assume it does. Certainly, the Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland doesn’t change that either way.

Those are community rules, and community rules are always subservient to instance rules.

As far as I can tell, she expects that, when contacted with proof that a particular user is being transphobic, that user will get banned. That sounds completely reasonable to me. Any social media which grows to a size where they cannot do that anymore has grown too large.

à*

Yesterday’s ABC article is a bit clearer that the latest news is the charger is going ahead.

I don’t disagree with you that these people are taking a message that seems inconsistent with the biblical portrayal of Jesus. But the above comment was criticising people “who feel the urge to spread Christianity in any way”. Which, yeah. Fuck them. If someone wants to do their research and convert to Christianity because they like it, more power to them.

But introducing children to that nonsense (by which I mean belief in resurrections and other obviously ridiculous bullshit, even if it’s not directly used to cause tangible harm) as though it’s fact at a vulnerable young age should be considered child abuse. And preying on vulnerable lonely or depressed people and using highly manipulative tactics like love bombing the way many evangelical branches of Christianity do, as do Mormons and I believe Jehovah’s Witnesses, should also be considered abusive behaviour.