HN user
What is your point? That they (either Russia or the Soviet Union) engage/d in propaganda?
My comment was that we see Soviet propaganda for what it is, so how do you think you're contradicting or correcting me?
Name examples aside from Bourne, because that is pretty much the only example.
Your link and comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.
For future reference, and for anyone interested, not only do (ICANN accredited) have to provide a transfer authcode within 5 days of being requested, it's also possible to transfer a domain after it has expired, as long as it's still within the renewal grace period.
When you accept immediately people automatically think their offer was too high and the name (or whatever item) must not be worth it. Next time ask for 20-50% more than they offer.
As I follow it, you're the one arguing it definitely didn't happen, based on one discredited witness, when there's evidence going back decades of abuse by political, military and intelligence figures in children's homes across Britain and Northern Ireland, and cover ups going all the way to the Prime Minister.
And what's the alternative to 1? That the Establishment commits suicide by allowing investigations capable of destroying (all public faith and confidence in) the Establishment? I'd love to know why that would ever happen.
You mean the Establishment allowed its own police to investigate crimes by members of the Establishment and it turned out that accusers against the Establishment are the real bad ones and Establishment figures are all just innocent old war heroes?
My word, who could have predicted that twist?
It's the easiest, and most obvious, thing in the world for a regime to kill a scandal or exposure of a conspiracy by poisoning the well with outrageous and easily exposed claims by easily discredited accusers.
Yeah, sorry, it's a fair enough way of phrasing it, I just thought the implication of it was funny.
There is a difference between a critique and censorship.
I don't say otherwise, or even refer to "critique" or "censorship" in my post, so what are you talking about?
The person is not advocating that the hosting company of this blog post remove it from the internet
I also didn't accuse them of advocating the hosting company of this blog remove it from the internet, or even remotely hint at such, so what are you talking about?
should not have been written in the first place
He said the author of the blog should "just spare us" their opinion.
If you want to carry on pretending you don't understand what that means I can't stop you, but next time try addressing what was actually written, not stuff you've completely made up to argue about.
The downvotes are far more likely simply because some people who love hate speech but hate free speech have more than 500 karma.
HTH
I don't know who you were hoping to kid here, other than yourself, but grandly stating someone should "just spare us" their opinion you don't happen to agree with is obviously not even remotely a "critique" of anything, it's simply a call for someone to shut the fuck up, because what matters (to "us") is what you personally are willing to tolerate.
In a way, I can't even understand how you could actually need this spelled out to you, unless you simply have no grasp of what you're posting, which admittedly is what it looks like.
I just realized that both happened mere blocks of my residence at the time.
So you didn't notice they happened blocks away from you when they happened?
Another textbook "free speech" hypocrite lecturing what someone with a different opinion should do instead of exercising their free speech.
Consistent with the fact we all know that the noisiest advocates of "free speech" in 2020 think the term simply means far-right/hate speech.
Funny how so many "free speech" advocates like yourself cry that people with different opinions should not express those opinions.
Edit: hilarious this is being so heavily downvoted, when it's exactly what the poster was doing. Did I offend a HN VIP?
1. Middle-people are a technical requirement. That's the point.
2. What happens if I send BTC without paying the middle-people a fee?
If the recipient doesn't typically receive it in seconds (and there's a public log of every sent and received 'message') let's stop making stuff up like bitcoin makes sending money like sending an email.
Why am I paying fees if there's no middle-person?
I don't understand cryptocurrencies.
People buy cryptocurrencies and hope the price rises and they can dump it back into the USD it has always been valued in, before everyone else does the same.
Since spamming forums to inflate the price doesn't work as it did a decade ago, in order to prevent them crashing to the floor, all kinds of nonsense white elephant use-cases have to be imagined/invented.
We all understand cryptocurrencies. (You're just not supposed to admit it out loud.)
Is this a government project though?
I don't know anything about it other than their site, but it states that it was supported "in 2019" by PrototypeFund ("a project of the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research") and/but "since 2020" supported by E Foundation.
From the regime which oversaw the deaths of thousands of people in 'care homes' by moving Covid-19 infected hospital patients into care homes, reducing testing in care homes as the plague exploded in March, advising against mask use for care home staff, and that "if an employee becomes unwell and believe they have been exposed to COVID-19 [...] normal practice should continue".[0]
Yes, the same regime that notoriously made the UK a sick joke around the world after openly announcing its preferred strategy of infecting as much of the population as possible with a deadly plague.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-soci...
I'm not sure what pinning it on the transition means, but it's suggesting that it seems to be an opportunistic time for controversial actions; the outgoing regime doesn't care and/or fully approves, and the New Boss avoids any association/responsibility.
The last time the White House transitioned from Republican to Democrat we had this:
The only good thing about hcaptcha - what's better than one page of images? - is it doesn't seem to care what you click, but then neither does Google if you're using Chrome.
About 20 years ago I was coming across a website called something like filthyrichguy.com (I can't remember the exact name).
Possibly the Rich Jerk. I don't know how much money they had, but they certainly lived up to at least half the name.
(Edit: It occurred to me that there were probably loads of these things; I always just assumed, maybe wrongly, TRJ was the original/worst/best.)
From your link: "Governments that have criticised AI include those of Israel, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China, Vietnam, Russia, Chile and the United States".
What's their political side?
Unfortunately if/when people do speak out or rise up about abuses of/from authority they are countered by bootlickers, or people who genuinely believe 'it could never happen here'.
If all humans aren't eradicated by nuclear war, I don't see why all memory, books, hard drives, other archives, computers, power plants, machinery, or even all contraceptives would be.
The first line of the article states:
"The first effective coronavirus vaccine can prevent more than 90% of people from getting Covid-19, a preliminary analysis shows."
I’m just shocked at how many people today have grown into learned helplessness and think that the system is so bad and irreparable that they need to vandalize and protest in cities for months.
It's quite right to be shocked so many people protested, because it's a strong signal that there's something drastically wrong with the system; something that nobody has any problem understanding and accepting when protests occur in other countries.
Sausages may have also been unaffordable for a typical prostitute, even with a free condom with every link.
You should see what people say about tax evader Al Capone.
TL;DR: Someone uploaded 3 (yes three) mp3s, which will be duly removed if they haven't been already. Torrentfreak bothered to tell the RIAA, to generate further drama and ad views, but even they weren't interested.
This has nothing to do with youtube-dl; it's just someone annoyed about it doing something completely pointless.