ToaKraka
Dislikes you
User ID: 108
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2hr ago
I was talking about a hypothetical situation where he wasn't lying, which is what the incentive system would be aimed at.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6hr ago
Reuters:
French watchdog orders conservative news channel CNews to comply with pluralism rules
France's media regulator on Monday ordered rolling news channel CNews to comply with rules on pluralism and diversity of opinion, putting the ultra-conservative channel owned by billionaire Vincent Bollore one step away from disciplinary action.
The channel, which critics have likened to the US's Fox News for its opinion-driven format and polarising tone, has been accused by media watchdogs and opponents of near-constant coverage of immigration and security, which they say fuels far-right narratives.
Media regulator Arcom issued the order after reviewing hours of airtime last year in a probe triggered by a complaint from international media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, which praised the decision in a statement.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Arcom head Martin Ajdari said its review of coverage in March 2025 showed "structurally unbalanced", one-sided output that left little room for opposing viewpoints.
He stressed that the regulator's role was not to police opinions, but to ensure media outlets showed viewers a diversity of views on each topic.
CNews contested the decision and said in a statement it planned to challenge it in the courts.
"Committed to freedom of expression, pluralism of debate, and the independence of its editorial line, CNews considers this decision to be an unjustified infringement of these fundamental democratic principles," it said in a statement.
The move comes less than a year before a presidential election in which far-right candidates are frontrunners.
France's 1986 broadcasting law requires television and radio outlets to ensure "honest, independent and pluralistic" coverage, including a diversity of viewpoints, particularly in news and current affairs programmes.
Almost uniquely in Europe, French broadcasters are required to count politicians' speaking time and ensure it broadly reflects recent election results and opinion polls.
The French media regulator also served a formal notice to public broadcaster Radio France last week, saying it had underrepresented the far-right National Rally in its programmes. It can impose fines and ultimately strip a channel of its broadcasting licence.
See also the US's former "fairness doctrine". In the words of the Supreme Court:
The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine, which originated very early in the history of broadcasting and has maintained its present outlines for some time. It is an obligation whose content has been defined in a long series of FCC rulings in particular cases, and which is distinct from the statutory equirement of § 315 of the Communications Act that equal time be allotted all qualified candidates for public office. Two aspects of the fairness doctrine, relating to personal attacks in the context of controversial public issues and to political editorializing, were codified more precisely in the form of FCC regulations in 1967.
There is a twofold duty laid down by the FCC's decisions and described by the 1949 Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees. The broadcaster must give adequate coverage to public issues, and coverage must be fair in that it accurately reflects the opposing views. This must be done at the broadcaster's own expense if sponsorship is unavailable. Moreover, the duty must be met by programming obtained at the licensee's own initiative if available from no other source.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
19hr ago
Krasner was not elected until 2018, long after the errors that he is conceding allegedly were made. It makes no sense to punish one prosecutor for conceding errors made by his predecessors (assuming that those errors actually exist).
Truly unbelievable set of court opinions from Philadelphia, providing lots of support for accusations of anarcho-tyranny:
-
A person is charged with two murders, one in January 2003 and another in December 2003. In 2004, he is convicted of the first murder, and is sentenced to life in prison. In 2005, he is convicted of the second murder, and is sentenced to death, partially because the first conviction is an aggravating factor.
-
In 2018, the person files for habeas corpus in the second sentencing (not conviction). The county prosecutor (Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, elected as a Democrat) concedes error and agrees that the death sentence should be reduced to life imprisonment. The habeas judge rejects the petition, and the state supreme court affirms (five to two), keeping the death sentence in place, because there was no actual basis for the prosecutor to concede error!
-
In 2020, the person files for habeas corpus in the first conviction (not sentencing). The prosecutor concedes error and agrees that the conviction should be overturned, and the habeas judge grants the petition and vacates the conviction. But the family of the murder victim intervenes and appeals, and the state supreme court reverses (by a bare vote of four to three), finding that the prosecutor not only had no basis to concede error, but actively lied to the habeas judge in order to get this murder conviction overturned! And this particular prosecutor has been engaging in similar shenanigans in over one hundred other murder habeas petitions! (Specifically: He has conceded error in 120 cases, including 110 murder cases and 35 death-sentence cases (75 percent of all the death-sentence cases in the county). 45 of the 120 concessions have not resulted in new trials; rather, the "exonerated" former convicts have merely been freed. 10 of the 120 concessions, including 9 in murder cases, have already been rejected as baseless by the state supreme court or by the federal appeals court.)
-
Remedy: Whenever the Philadelphia prosecutor concedes error in a habeas petition, the state prosecutor (Attorney General) must receive an opportunity to intervene against the Philadelphia prosecutor. (The three dissenters think (1 2) that this remedy goes too far beyond the limits of the case. One concurring justice thinks that it doesn't go far enough, and state law obligates the state prosecutor to intervene in county proceedings that become non-adversarial due to the county prosecutor's admission of error.)
The DAO insists its many concessions over the past eight years in mostly murder cases “simply demonstrate that the DAO has embraced its responsibility as a minister of justice”. We endorse in the strongest possible terms a prosecutor’s duty to minister justice. Lest there be any uncertainty on this score, we reiterate that a prosecutor is ethically obliged to concede relief on PCRA review when (but only when) the facts and law support it. We also emphasize that our decision is not intended to “counteract the policy choices” of the DAO. DA Krasner remains free “to exercise his discretion on behalf of the Commonwealth in Philadelphia’s criminal and PCRA cases”. But the means for achieving those ends cannot transgress the bounds of the law, and what we have seen in this case and too many others is the opposite of justice. Again and again, the DAO has made unreliable concessions unsupported by the facts and law. And when conceding relief, the DAO has repeatedly lacked candor to the court, misrepresented facts, failed to conduct adequate investigations, and inexplicably dodged necessary evidentiary hearings. This Court too has a “duty… to minister justice”. Indeed, our “principal obligations are to conscientiously guard the fairness and probity of the judicial process and the dignity, integrity, and authority of the judicial system, all for the protection of the citizens of this Commonwealth”. Our duty to safeguard justice compels us to order that in all PCRA cases in which the DAO concedes relief, the PCRA court shall afford the OAG notice and the opportunity to intervene before ruling on the concession.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
20hr ago
Derogatory term for someone still wearing an anti-coronavirus face mask years after the pandemic ended
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
21hr ago
a plan for US and its allies to spend $300B
According to Reuters, all the money is coming from private companies, not from governments.
The [300-billion-dollar] fund's existence has been previously reported, but Reuters is revealing for the first time that more than half of the amount has already been committed and that it will be composed entirely of private-sector funds.
The new fund is a private investment vehicle, not a reconstruction or reparations programme, and will not include any government money or grants, the source said, adding that companies based in the US, the Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America, and Africa have agreed to commit financing.
So it isn't comparable to the government-funded Marshall Plan.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
The definition of "doxing" also has been muddled by the decision of several state governments (example) to criminalize publication of personal information with intent to harm (i. e., harassment) under the name "doxing" (which, under the traditional definition, does not necessarily involve intent to harm).
Last year, the administrator of Kiwi Farms urged that website's users to switch to a different word, such as "phonebooking", "unmasking", or "sunshining".
There are two definitions of doxing (alt. doxxing):
a. Form of harassment in which personal information is used to intimidate, threaten, or distress others.
b. Searching / archiving public information and reposting it.The Kiwi Farms has always had rules against contacting people. We've always had rules against threatening or extorting people. We've always had rules against encouraging other people to do those things ("someone should...").
In the last year especially, the word doxing has become popularly realigned from the second definition (which originated online in the 2000s) to the first (which was popularized by journos).
The law has extended harassment definitions in many jurisdictions to include online harassment which utilizes personal information. This is in the same way "cyberbullying" is a crime, but "cyberbullying" does not mean any form of online critique: it specifically refers to students in highschool or college harassing their peers online in such a way to intimidate them from going to school. Doxing has become criminalized, but as an extension of already criminal behavior under the first definition, usually applied to people who already know each other in real life.
The fact that this subculture invented the term and abides within the law is irrelevant to what the average person now thinks of when they hear "doxing". That we are 'in the right' does not matter. The use of a word, which now describes a crime, to describe things which are not criminal, is detrimental to our interests and long-term prospects.
In 2025 I need the community at large to stop using the word "doxing" to describe legal information gathering and switch to anything else. The following terms have been suggested, including both verbs which describe the act of looking something up, and the noun which describes a compilation of this information.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Am I one of the only people out there that thinks traveling just fucking sucks ass? I mean, it’s more or less “like this” almost anywhere you go (where you don’t want to put your life at risk).
I agree.
I mean, yeah, I’ve always wanted to visit the morbid, desolate, and forbidden stay-away zones your mother would never want you to go to as a sense of adventure
I disagree.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
I'm sure that most denizens of this website feel inferior to the huge-brained lawyers, programmers, and doctors. There is no need for you to expect yourself to be as ultra-cool as they are. Many of the comments that I myself make are just links to sources—not very big-brained, but not the most low-value stuff in the world, either.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Warning: The "?si=", "?pp=", and similar portions that YouTube has started adding to any URL created with the "share" button allegedly can be used to reveal the YouTube username of the user who created that URL. For that reason, those portions of the URL should be deleted before copying and pasting.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Several items indicate that the person is extremely left-wing.
-
Announcement of pronouns in username
-
Use of coronavirus mask in profile image, years after the pandemic
-
Link to a "PayEquityNow" account in profile description
-
Announcement of indigenous background in profile description
It is the opinion of several commenters here that any extremely-left-wing person is automatically a "security risk" to Trump's right-wing government.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
Dilution of the lifespan
This topic has seen significant scholarly discussion under the name "rectangularization of the survival curve".
Rectangularization is defined as a trend toward a more rectangular shape of the survival curve due to increased survival and concentration of deaths around the mean age at death.
Outer rectangularization is the standard perspective of rectangularization, and captures progress in mean lifespan relative to progress in maximum lifespan.
Inner rectangularization adds a new perspective. In contrast to the outer rectangle, we seek the largest rectangle under the survival curve.
most of SpaceX's valuation is from its investments in datacenters (renting compute to Anthropic and others) rather than from its rocket and satellite internet business
Source? Numbers from the prospectus:
| Segment | Revenue (G$/a) |
|---|---|
| Space (SpaceX proper) | 4.1 |
| Connectivity (Starlink) | 11.4 |
| AI (xAI) | 3.2 |
| Total | 18.7 |
| Item of property, plant, and equipment | Value (G$) |
|---|---|
| Servers and networking equipment | 22.7 |
| Satellites | 11.9 |
| Machinery and equipment | 6.3 |
| Data-center infrastructure | 3.0 |
| Launch sites | 2.4 |
| Land, buildings, and improvements | 1.9 |
| Flight-vehicle hardware | 1.7 |
| Leasehold improvements | 0.8 |
| Construction in progress | 4.6 |
| Subtotal | 55.3 |
| Depreciation | −12.7 |
| Total | 42.6 |
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
Warning: The "?si=" and "?pp=" portions that YouTube has started adding to any URL created with the "share" button allegedly can be used to reveal the YouTube username of the user who created that URL. For that reason, those portions of the URL should be deleted before copying and pasting.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
Any unattractive or ordinary-looking person could have such a realization after being dumped by an attractive person, regardless of gender.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
I remember loving Lucky Starr and being disappointed by Norby
I vaguely recall enjoying the Norby books, though I remember almost nothing about them except the weird telepathy punctuation (was it italics with guillemets?).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
(1) As I said, the specific hostility of "tits or GTFO" is long dead. I personally never saw it first-hand.
(2) I said "of unspecified, but implicitly not low, attractiveness", not "attractive". Lots of men salivate over women who are merely "not unattractive" (three stars out of five) rather than "attractive" (four stars)—and lots of autists are interested in "dorky homeschool girls".
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
What type of attention do women deserve and want? I want to imagine the internet is more egalitarian now and just being a woman online (an egirl?) isn’t enough to warrant any special treatment or attention.
LOL. Compare:
(1) An attractive woman goes to a mall, supermarket, or big-box store and basks in the knowledge that she is turning the heads of a dozen men by simply existing near them.
(2) A person claiming to be a woman (of unspecified, but implicitly not low, attractiveness) goes to a forum of mostly-male autists and basks in the knowledge that she is turning the heads of a hundred men by simply claiming to exist near them in cyberspace.
But maybe I'm just engaging in the typical-mind fallacy, and expounding on these topics despite being totally unqualified to discuss them.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
The other comment can be interpreted as a joke with two meanings.
In the misty past, it was the default assumption that all users of the Internet were ugly men, and any user claiming otherwise without providing proof was a liar—a person shrewd enough to assume a convincing false persona in order to gain social clout in online spaces. (A long-dead shorthand phrase related to this phenomenon is "tits or GTFO"—i. e., the identity of an Internet poster as female cannot be confirmed without a photograph in which the subject exposes herself while holding a piece of paper with a timestamp.)
In modern times, this assumption has greatly weakened. (In particular, the "rationalist" community has been accused of being too trusting and incapable of simulating the thought processes of liars.) But it has not totally disappeared. So, in the opinion of the other commenter, if you are actually a woman you will get the deserved attention that you want, and if you are an ugly man pretending to be a woman you will get the undeserved attention that you want from this website's "quokka" denizens (positive reinforcement for your evil trolling).
Text of decision
More options
Context Copy link