GOP was setting the bar low for Vance before the debate, and he easily cleared it, so with low expectations, the consensus will be that he was fantastic. Walz was no surprise, he was fine, so I think folks are going to call it a slight Vance win. It won't matter, neither got hit hard enough, it won't move anything.

Yeah, and folks know "scruples" as a noun which some people have and some don't, but "scruple" as a verb is a nice archaic version that I really like, which you don't encounter much outside of, say, a Jane Austen novel.

I would say "meaningful". Billionaires can have a very noticeable effect with their philanthropy, while making essentially no sacrifice on their part. The Gates Foundation does very noticeable good, but Bill Gates isn't giving of himself very much.

It was coined by Cory Doctorow.

I think it's pretty clear from my comment that I don't need that law. But some people do, because some people have bosses who will not behave normally and decently unless forced to.

They have ARPU targets (Average Revenue Per User) and UAC targets (User Acquisition Costs). Whales contribute significantly to the game's bottom line. Non-paying customers are vital, because player population is a game quality, and Whales need a population to notice how awesome they are.

But game companies don't tend to separate Whales from other players (at least not the ones I've worked for), they tend to care about ARPU, which is more stable, and a much easier target to shoot for. And they want to keep UAC down, which lowers the required ARPU for a successful game.

The Other Shoe: the first recipient was Mitch McConnell, and his episodes lately have been during firmware updates.

I would chalk most of that up to relative nascence, and mostly volunteer labor. I would expect things to improve. In the meantime, I'm fine with my lemmy and mastodon instances, and don't feel a lack of much.

Whatever the authors leanings are, they make a good point. Lemmy has followed Karl Popper's maxim "Tolerant societies must be intolerant of intolerance." It's just that simple.

Just because they can take control of the domain doesn't mean they somehow have access to the data any servers that used the domain have. Those servers were, i feel confident, not in Afghanistan. Domains are just redirects, so the Taliban have nothing on any of the users.

Seriously. Brand recognition like Twitter is the dream. It's so strong, X will forever be known not as itself, but as "X, formerly Twitter".

You're almost right: they do have to ask. They get a warrant, and they ask, and they are never told no.