I use Firefox with DuckDuckGo. But I do agree that Google is so pervasive in the browser space that pasting text to the URL bar without further context can be reasonably understood in most instances, as sending data to Google.
- 1 Post
- 104 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
Cake day: November 1st, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Outlook intercepts and disables it because of course it does and instead pastes it with the formatting but with a little drop down box at the end of your text pass address you can click to remove the formatting like you tried to do with you with hotkeys.
I have to use Outlook for work, but never intentionally do so if I choice. Truly amazing. If there’s anything that can be messed up, it will be.
It does AI autocorrect to text though, which I’m not sure how I feel. It hasn’t ruined anything for me just yet, but they’re starting to try and make it automagical, which is exactly what I needed not to be.
I think that credits them with a little bit too much conscious attention. I think they were surprised to even win and kind of bumbled through and were able to retrospect with the look back at that experience and think about what to do once they had a second chance. So I did set up a second term, but I don’t regard that as having been part of a singular intentional plan. Like another commenter in this thread said the dog caught the car in the first term.
Laws do not need to be moral, logical, rational, or even reasonable
They do to be legitimate, which is what I thought this conversation is about. The flexing of power is many things, but not something that testifies to legal legitimacy in ways that motivate the creation of laws as distinguished from the ordinary structures that arise from blind power in the first place. This is actually something I remember from Philosophy 101, where Socrates talked to the rage filled Thrasymachus who said what’s “right” is the same as “the advantage of the stronger” and the whole point of the conversation is that there was more to it than that.
Or, perhaps more to the point, I recall one of the mini-skits in a play called Too Much Light Makes The Baby Go Blind, which had a lion talking about power to a monkey talking about intelligence. The point of the skit is that they were talking past each other, with the lion thinking that drawing a distinction between power and intelligence meant they were missing the lion’s point about power.
Thank you for the complement! But I haven’t read anything, and I don’t think being the face that the boot stomps on would make me agree that “laws” enforced in that manner have anything to do with legitimacy. Legitimacy has to do with adherence to principles, consent of the governed.
Something is certainly being enforced in the scenario you have described, but certainly not legitimate laws.
This whole comment simply doubles down on might makes right and has nothing to do with legitimacy.
It sounds like for you the signature of legitimacy is not the soundness of legal judgments as developed within consensus and consent and principle based deliberation, but their enforceability with weapons. And so I think we probably have diametrically opposite ideas of what renders laws legitimate.
Upvotes as a source of truth! This is why /r/the_donald was such a reliable source of truth
but a set of agreements that don’t have the power of law.
Rule of law is about having a culture of respect for law as a legitimate product of democratic institutions. If law is only real to you because it’s “real” in the sense of boots, batons and assault rifles, the ‘power’ you are interested in is not the power of law.
Aren’t the ICJ, ICC and UNSC institutions of international law? And haven’t they ruled over and over again that the settlements, occupations, blockades, and blocking of humanitarian aid to Palestine have been violations of international law?
I think that’s a low effort cheap shot but because there’s sympathetic dogpiling voting patterns you get to evade criticism for doing the same thing.
Great point, Holodomor was fabricated by Hollywood on the same fake sets as the moon landing. There’s literally no reasonable good faith charitable interpretation that could possibility be referencing a legitimate criticism. This elevates the quality of communication and is an indication of good faith participation in conversations sincerely directed at cultivating shared understanding.
Regardless of your opinion on the current war
“Other than that, how was the play?”
If Russia so wished, they could level Kyiv overnight
AKA the “Jeffrey Dahmer could have been worse” argument lol
Relevant SMBC:
Lawyer: Okay, let’s say my client killed his wife. What about the people he didn’t kill?! That’s six billion people! Don’t they matter? Don’t they matter?!
Caption: In an alternate universe, Jeffrey Dahmer has a thank you parade every year.
I don’t use it because I consider it trustworthy in and of itself, but because you probably do
Right but the source you cited was literally saying the exact opposite of what you claimed.
(crickets…)
their proxy war
Meanwhile Russia did the war-war. I think you should do two posts about war-war accountability for every one post about proxy-war accountability.
basic facts of the situation
I think it’s more the selective emphasis than the ‘basic facts’.
Wait, who said anything about twice? I think you’re dead on about the second term, I think it was intentional. Just the first term was the dog that caught the car.