Does the threadiverse have a titlegore community?

Even calling Trump's election fraud claims "unproven" is lending them far too much weight. "Unsupported" is probably the most charitable way to describe them.

I know not everybody contemplates the messages found in their preferred media, but it's hard to imagine someone who thinks like that finding anything to like about Star Trek.

To what end? He lives in New York, a solid blue state, and posted his endorsement on his LinkedIn account (heh) unprompted. If he secretly voted differently, a) it wouldn't make any difference and b) he wouldn't be using his influence to encourage people to vote against his secret fave.

I'm not saying this because I trust Bloomberg, I'm saying it because I literally can't see any benefit to him lying about this. Are you suggesting some sort of 4D chess reverse psychology deal where he endorses Kamala so that people who dislike him will trigger his trap card by voting against his publicly supported candidate, which is secretly what he wanted all along?

Before the "Well they're just fictional images, so what's the harm?" brigade shows up (hopefully we left them on Reddit), he was using photographs of real children. People would send him photos of children they knew in their personal lives who they wanted to see in sexual abuse situations and he would create the images. He was also convicted of encouraging the men he was talking to to rape children in real life.

I get the argument, but email is also very different to the kind of open-web network that the fediverse resides in. There are problems the fediverse faces which email doesn't like discoverability. The emails either come to you or they don't. With federated social media, you have to find the content you're looking for first. Maybe you use a search engine, or somebody gives you a business card with their handle and instance, whatever. Then you have to figure out how to view those posts from your home instance if you want to actually interact in any way. There's browser extensions and stuff which try to make this easier, but that's another thing that has to be explained and set up, plus not everyone is visiting from a web browser with extension support, or a web browser at all for that matter.

It's not fundamentally impossible to understand the fediverse, but there's more of a barrier than email, which can be explained in a single sentence like "Your email provider gives you a unique address that anybody else can send emails to and vice versa." I don't think convincing ourselves that the fediverse is actually very simple is going to convince people outside the bubble that that's true.

Rotschy, which routinely hired teenage workers amid recent labor shortages, violated the law when supervisors assigned tasks known to be dangerous and prohibited for minors to perform.

L&I later issued significant fines against Rotschy for the incident, but has for years approved special “variances” for the company to hire minors despite its history of serious safety violations.

For their part, Derrik and his parents say they do not hold Rotschy responsible. It was a fluke, an unlucky break — not the company being neglectful, they said.

“I don’t think Rotschy failed my son in any way,” Derrik’s dad said. “All these events culminated into this accident.”

I hope they were paid very, very handsomely to say that.

This is a bit of an oversimplification. Generally, they would use the laughter from the actual audience in attendance. The stands were mic'd but the nature of filming anything is that it will often take multiple takes. Ideally, you get a perfect performance and response on the first take, but that's not reality. Maybe you got a great laugh, but Jerry clinked a glass loudly over Jason's line. So they cut and reset, Jerry does the joke again and there's no mistakes, but the audience response is more muted because they just heard that joke.

The solution here is pretty obvious: grab the laugh from the first take and dub that over the performance from the second take. Technically, you're misleading the audience at home because that laughter came from a different take, but it would also be misleading to show the home audience the tenth take and you hear the audience murmur awkwardly as if they hated it, when that's just the response you'll get from an audience ten takes deep into hearing the same joke.

There's even the reverse case, where maybe some audience audio just isn't usable. Nobody notices it on the day, but there was one take you got perfectly the first time, but in editing you hear some guy sneezing loudly while the rest of the crowd is giggling. You could just lose that scene or mute the audience for it, or crossfade into some similar audio you got from the previous scene, or whatever. Other times, your actors might continue a scene but the audience laughs over the next couple of lines, so you fade the crowd. In this way, the audience response is only as fake as the show itself is. Maybe Julia gave a funnier line read in take 3 but Jason hit a run on take 5, so you edit those together, making the best of the stuff you got on the day. Sometimes it was necessary to do the same for the laughs.

It was always preferable to get the real audience response to the actual current take, because if Michael does some physical bit to play off the crowd, you should hear them respond at the appropriate time, even in the middle of a longer laugh. But sometimes the pure documentary fact of what happened in the take that made it to air just isn't the best version of the show. Ultimately, it's not a scheme to trick people into thinking the audience responded differently. If anything, a joke that the audience didn't respond to would get changed on-set rather than fixed in editing. You'd huddle with the writers and go "They don't like this, what else have you got?" Then you'd feed your actors the new lines and see if they got a better reaction.

tl;dr: Crowd sound in any sitcom that is filmed before a live studio audience is mostly genuine.

For a post-script, even pre-taped outdoor scenes and stuff would be shown to the audience on large monitors so that a) they could follow the story and b) so their reactions could be recorded in the same session, with the same crowd, including the same guy with the staccato laugh so everything sounds consistent across the entire episode.

Sorry this is so long.

Somebody has fed you or you have invented bad information. Neither Yuzu nor Ryujinx, the two Switch emulators which recently ceased development due to intervention from Nintendo, included Nintendo's code. The Yuzu settlement required those developers to acknowledge that

because our projects can circumvent Nintendo’s technological protection measures and allow users to play games outside of authorized hardware, they have led to extensive piracy.

There was never any mention of them stealing Nintendo code.

Ryujinx, we know even less about, because the agreement went down privately, but there's literally zero indication of any stolen code. We know that Nintendo contacted the developer proposing that they cease offering Ryujinx and they did.

Obviously, Nintendo was bothered in both of these cases because the emulators do facilitate piracy, but that's not the same as them having infringed on Nintendo's copyright by using their code which you are claiming. Both of these emulators were developed open-source; if they were built using stolen Nintendo code there would be receipts all over the place. That was never the problem.

US$249.99 ready-built, for anybody curious. Not saying it's not worth that, but that will price a lot of people out of it.

This article is weird. For one thing, the last sentence quoted is just confusing:

Van Dillen is then seen wading through the water with the woman on her back, carrying her to safety.

Who's the "her" in that sentence? Anyway, the really confusing part is that they then consulted with an expert on journalistic ethics:

It’s clear that while he had a professional obligation to report the news, “there’s also someone whose potential life is at risk,” Vincent said. “So I think the call he made is a human call.”

Considering the rising waters and the woman’s cries for help, along with not knowing when help would arrive, “it’s a straightforward case of jumping in — a fellow citizen actually helping another,” Vincent said.

Why is the writer explaining this basic concept like I'm an alien? Sometimes, people stop doing their job for a few moments to save somebody's life even though that's not what their job entails. That's interesting. Are the humans then punished for their dereliction of duty?

Wow, Vivaldi really is about restoring the old school web, everyone else stopped supporting .swf years ago.