Good to know. Even if it does get unsuspended, I'm taking it as a wake up call. If that was my gmail account I would've been in a bad situation. I use it for almost everything.

Better late than never lol. They really are a shitty company. Bots run the show over there. I just never thought it would be this bad until it was...

The other shenanigans was that the secretary of state allowed other petitioners with the same issues to proceed on the ballot, namely marijuana and gambling referendums. The organizers should have been on their best behavior because the state was always going to selectively enforce the rules here.

I have to imagine the game was a disaster for them to abandon it like they did. Given what Cities Skylines 2 was like at release, their standards must be in the basement.

If Baldwin provided all the ammo used, it increases the likelihood he is convicted by a jury. This ammo would've been provided to the Armorer by a third party, without his knowledge. At trial, the defense could have made any number of arguments that Baldwin had no way of knowing live ammunition was on set because an outside individual brought it to the set.

In any case, it's a clear Brady violation. The prosecutor has a constitutional duty to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense. It's not up to them to decide if it will be enough to establish reasonable doubt.

What the prosecution did was place this evidence under a new, case & number for a non-existent crime. They never had any intention of investigating the case that ammo was assigned to. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw was the prosecution deliberately obfuscated the relationship that ammo had to Baldwin's case to avoid providing it.

In an already highly attenuated case, and with overwhelming evidence that Baldwin's rights were violated, there can be no fair trial going forward. From the perspective of the law, once the prosecution has been found to have violated Brady deliberately, there can never be due process for the defendant.

I kinda don't want to dip my toes in this, but here goes:

I agree that it's occasionally a breath of fresh air. The issue I've always had with Hexbear is they've more or less replaced one version of American (and to a lesser extent European) exceptionalism with another. Where American nationalists consider America to be exceptionally great, Hexbear considers it to be exceptionally evil. They routinely attribute domestic incidents in different countries to American meddling--regardless of evidence--even when those events either achieve nothing for American geostrategic goals or actively harm them. America as the "great Satan," etc.

Just an example because I remember it: Imran Khan lost an internal power struggle in Pakistan. He was probably the most west-friendly candidate left there, but Hexbear blamed a CIA coup https://hexbear.net/post/186331

In the same vein, they permit or even encourage Chinese aggression against the Philippines, within the Philippines' own exclusive economic zone. You can't substitute one form of imperialism for another. It's a trap I see a lot of leftists fall into.

I think most of 'em are alright. Just growing into leftist thought still and grappling with the moshpit that is international politics. Also they're funny lol

So, as someone who has used the Internet since its very earliest days, what would you say about what the Internet is like today versus back then? Was it better? Worse? Any major online events that you can recall from that period?

I grew up at the very tail end of the old forums and certainly after the decline and death of old school chat rooms. Most of them died or went inactive while I was in high school/college. The version of the internet older adults used is almost alien to me.

Hell, today's Internet is on its way to being alien too.

As someone who peer reviewed papers, and got familiar with the process, most reviewers do not take the time to seriously examine papers. I would compare my comments to other reviewers for the same paper, and holy shit they barely read it. I would spot pretty blatant omissions--bad methodology, incomplete sections that make a paper impossible to reproduce, poor quality figures, need for major revisions. The other reviewers would offer minor suggestions and leave it at that. And the chief editor will push it out the door with minor revisions that don't address any issues.

I have seen some truly blatant shit get published. Like figures that have made up data, or that we're straight up copied from the authors' previous publication and presented as new. The for-profit publishing industry doesn't give a fuck. Those issues might get caught 10 years down the road, like in that case, but it's usually a slap on the wrist for tenured faculty unless it gets lots of attention.

Prof in my department when I was a grad student blatantly copied work from another researcher, and the only sanctions he got were a moratorium on taking new grad students.

She grew up in a dangerous environment. In a lot of ways, she's always in fight or flight mode. Usually fight.

It's something she is getting treated for. She's on an anxiety med and visits a therapist once a month, but between that and a very stressful job, she's worn down.

It's a really complex situation all around and I don't know of a straightforward way to deal with it.

By virtue of having a disproportionately beneficial EU membership agreement, they actually caused friction with later EU members that received the standard agreements later on.

It's hard to overstate how catastrophic the UK fucked up by leaving the EU. They joined on the bottom floor, had the leverage to negotiate a deal that gave them more benefits, let them keep their currency instead of promising to one day adopt the Euro, and had access to all the immigration controls they needed to deal with the 'problem' Tories perceived.

It's incredible, really. Part of me still can't believe they tossed all of that away. It's got to be one of the biggest peacetime geopolitical fuckups ever.

Freelancer had to be pried from his control because he couldn't meet even the least ambitious deadlines. Chris Roberts hasn't managed a successful project from start to finish in over 20 years.