natecox

That monster. Goosebumps was a foundational part of my lifelong love of reading.

The wall is almost certainly already some variation of Swiss coffee, which is like a drop of black and two drops of umber per gallon… juuuuust enough to give it a little color.

When I used to help people pick colors the primary advice I gave them was that once it’s on the wall you will never see the difference between the four shades of [color] you’re looking at because at scale your brain blends it in with the lighting and ambient color of the rest of the room.

Sheen makes more of a difference, and the answer is always satin/eggshell for living spaces and gloss for kitchens and bathrooms (because it’s more moisture resistant and washable). Flat can go fuck itself, it only exists as a cheap option for track homes who don’t care about your paint looking good for more than six months.

Source: worked at a paint store for several years, did a loooot of color matching by eye.

This is so common it has a name, it’s called banner blindness.

One of the important aspects of interface design is supposed to be not showing alerts for everything, so that when they pop up you feel compelled to pay attention.

Not long ago a nurse killed an older woman by giving her the wrong medicine; she took accountability but called out that the software they use provides so many alerts that (probably unofficial) policy was to just click through them to get to treating the patient. One of those alerts was a callout that the wrong dosage was selected and she zoomed right by it out of habit.

It’s hard to have a discourse on a topic if you insist that the scope of that topic must by default be infinite.

X isn’t being threatened with litigation because they’re freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses; they’re being threatened with litigation because they are a billion dollar business sustaining themselves by selling ads along with content that Brazil argues was misinformation and hate speech.

On the topic of freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses: it may be moral in some extreme examples to defy the government, but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.

I don’t think it’s the responsibility of X to know the laws of every country; I expect them to respect the wishes of other countries when it is brought to their attention if they want to continue doing business there.

Also, I think we both know that the misinformation we are talking about here has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The context of the linked article clearly indicates that harmful mistruths leading to harmful actions is the subject here.

I’m not sure why it’s so tempting to think of internet content as a special entity that defies otherwise established rules. Maybe it’s simply because no special effort is needed today to get the content across the border?

Regardless, we aren’t talking about your geocities page, we’re talking about billion dollar businesses. Would it be appropriate to take your physical storefront across international borders and insist that the government there should have zero say as to what products you sell? If not, why is it appropriate to do the same with web content? X is selling content in the form of ad distribution, countries should get to decide if that content is appropriate for distribution.

I’m going to challenge your assertion that you’re not talking about what should be considered harmful by pointing out that you are loading your argument substantially by asserting that people need “help” protecting them from “harmful” censorship. Remember that the issue addressed in this thread is Brazil banning X for its promotion of misinformation and hate speech.

Censorship isn’t harmful by default. It is ok to ban people from shouting “fire” in a theater for example, because the shout may result in real harm. Now you can argue that some censorship may be harmful because of its impact on society, such as the removal of books from school hampering fair and complete education or banning research texts that expose inconvenient truths.

But, again the issue here is specifically an attempt to ban misinformation and hate speech; are you going to make an argument that these things are a positive to the community and should be defended as a moral imperative? Frankly it’s a pretty silly stance to take.

Define “harmful censorship”. I would argue—strongly—that censoring hate speech and misinformation is a public service.

I also think that any service (twitter) refusing to abide by the laws of a country (Brazil) has no place in that country.

We routinely censor content to placate China; like, all the time.

I believe each country should get to have a say in what is permissible, and content deemed unacceptable should be blockable by region. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say “well it’s on the internet so it’s untouchable” simply because the server is in another country.

Disinformation campaigns are specifically designed to undermine the reasoning capabilities of people by inveigling them into believing (usually emotionally provocative) falsehoods, turning them into misinformation conduits in the process.

It’s like saying that meth should be legal because reasonable people should just chose not to use it, ignoring the social and mental health issues that drive people to consume it against their best interest.

Sometimes the right thing to do is to cut off the head of the snake before it can bite you.

“Does not represent” as in “My government does not represent me when they abolish the right to abortion and ban library books”.

They’re in charge but not actually acting with the will of the people they’re in charge of in mind.

I have the nomad, and I love it. I use it every day for taking meeting notes and it hasn’t let me down yet.

Their current OS is android based (I think) and works fine, but I am excited about a Linux version replacing it.