Cataphract

I've just recently ran into a new company advertising besides slot lights and it made the movie unwatchable. Slot lights will usually throw in 2-3 ad breaks which really annoy me because the audio levels are always pumped way up and it breaks the immersion in the narrative, followed with scattered smaller banner ads littered throughout the run time.

This new company slapped a huge banner ad that takes up 1/3 of the screen that's present during the entire run time. Just insane when it comes to marketing because I can't even remember the company and made me switch off. VPN + torrent will be a blessing when I can find better versions and get off these streaming sites that just carry them.

While the current definition certainly fits that description, it actually has a longer history.

Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".[1][2] Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism and LGBT rights. Woke has also been used as shorthand for some ideas of the American Left involving identity politics and social justice, such as white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.

The phrase stay woke has been present in AAVE since the 1930s. In some contexts, it referred to an awareness of social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in recordings from the mid-20th century by Lead Belly and, post-millennium, by Erykah Badu.

(source)

I don't know about upholding time honored traditions, seems contradictory and subjective to me when your later stance includes an example of the Quran (another time honored tradition you don't agree with). I don't agree with making it illegal for anyone to attend school so it seems like a double edge sword that's based solely on a personal morality which is hard to codify for an entire population.

I also agree a private protest is no protest at all, but it becomes complicated when you're targeting a religious group's texts just because bad faith actors are using it for control. Even burning their flag seems weird when it's not the people of that country making the decisions but by the administration in charge (I'm not sure on what the target for the protest should be then in that case though).

Constitutionally you have to make a decision, I believe this has been debated and somewhat agreed upon though that access to a happy life (access to healthcare and freedom of religion) is more important than the right to "burn shit" as one has been documented and burning is not mentioned in most or any constitutions. Though freedom of expression is, which again becomes complicated when that expression is wished to be expressed through destruction of property (public/private). Again, I don't have a particular stance on this subject but just pointing out contradictions in the arguments to better understand the ideology behind everyone's thoughts.

Plenty of good or interesting points being made by both sides so I appreciate the conversations. I'm not too sure of what the problem is though when the discussion and article mostly revolves around public spaces. Usually there are gathering/event requirements around anything that constitutes pyrotechnics or the use of fire in a performance as that can be a hazard and special precautions need to be followed (fire extinguishers, etc). I'm not too sure about the laws currently on the books of most countries but I doubt many places allow you to just walk up to a street corner and start a fire whether the item you're burning is your property or not.

I'm also confused on the double standard of what constitutes public or private when it comes to online media. I think this is something that needs to be fleshed out more in this day and age. For instance the article references a current law Denmark has on the books,

The ban is expected to be added to a section of the criminal code that bans public insult of a foreign state, its flag or other symbol.

Is social media/the internet a public space? If so, does posting a video recorded on private property and then uploading it to said online public space nullify the private property? I've seen a lot of people use this double standard only when it benefits them. For instance, if you typed out something online that's considered "free speech" but violates civil law because of it's context then they are in the wrong. On the flip side, if you record a video of someone having a conversation at a private backyard bbq and upload it, has the person broken a law when they weren't in "public" during the recording?

The ban above is a great example to use. I, myself, feel like the criminal code goes a little too far with no public insults of a foreign state. How does that work out with the scenario I presented when the video gets released. I'm not sure if the criminal code even touches on the digital aspect of it, or who is at fault (the uploader, the person making the statements, or the hosting site).

Another ironic stance I'm seeing is the freedom/protection of expression being used to allow the public burning of books and condemning those who are against it. There are specific and recognized groups which receive protections under the law from discrimination and targeting of hate speech (the Denmark suggested law also covers bibles so it's not just a Quran issue). Are we picking and choosing who these protections are allowed for based on our opinion on whether we agree with them or not?

For example if religious text burning is allowed for a public display, are all forms of expression then allowed? Burning a cross in front of an historically African American church, burning a pride flag at a pride march, burning baby dolls in front of an abortion clinic, political rivals, medical clinics that perform care for transitioning, hell even nazis burning disney shit outside of disney world?

If you're of the belief that all of this should be allowed under the umbrella of freedom of speech/expression, what do you feel should be the governments stance on protection of it's citizens from harassment in public spaces? Should the government even address these problems, or is it the same as no one should expect privacy in a public space so therefor expect persecution and harassment as well? How does this not effect businesses and organizations from being targeted with hostile forces? I'm reminded of the civil rights era, groups of white nationalists armed and congregating outside of a business to intimidate anyone of color from using the premises or social services. Groups will maintain these tactics and multiply if there is no resistance from a governmental stance, this will only heighten confrontations when opposing groups are formed to combat these scenarios leading to civil unrest, physical harm/altercations, and potentially death of innocent bystanders if something were to escalate.

I am not of any of those targeted groups, not a policy maker, and have an indifferent stance so I'm open to honest debate on everyone's side. I also feel like the remarks made by OIC needs to be investigated,

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called on its members to take appropriate action against countries where the Quran was being desecrated.

Any group that can be seen as calling for harm to members of that countries population should have legal ramifications in that country, but I'm unsure of what they mean when they say "appropriate action" which is why I said it should be investigated further.

I don't wear headsets but I have a similar shape (not sure if it's as pronounced since I haven't shaved it like that). The article goes onto explain that it takes near 300lbs of pressure to dent the skull and if anything it's just soft tissue/fat being weird, which can go away through massage and giving it a break lol.

I guess if you're wearing something as tight as a belt it might make the fat form around differently. I'm skeptical though, I just don't know what kind of devices these guys are specifically wearing and the weight/time duration so I guess anything is possible.

Eventually they might be concerned with our mental well being and find simple tasks we can do to keep ourselves busy. To make it more efficient they could construct indoor spaces where we can be with other pet-humans doing tasks until they're ready for us to return to our cages.

and yet every single online grocery shopping I've been on refuses to have a filter or sort by price per weight option. It's even more incredibly infuriating when you have to click into an item's description or calculate it yourself, extra bonus hell points to the sites that change the weight metric so it's an extra step to figure out what the actual comparison is (probably more a US problem with ounce/pound conversion).

Hail of a good pun line going on.

I agree, it's difficult for anyone to truly grasp how big space is. The problem is we're not interested in 99.9999999...% of space, we're interested in key points. You can drop one grain of bright pink sand on a mountain and no one would care or notice. If you only concentrate that on one path up the mountain and back down, eventually the infinite number of people traversing/dropping on that path will be noticeable and have an effect.

lmao, I didn't catch that so thank you. I was in a stupor when I wrote that and meant astronomy lol. I added the sciences in because there's a plethora of different fields that require clear observations and wasn't sure what the best terminology was to include all of the possibilities. Instead I completely missed the mark with the wrong base word.

I must have an overactive imagination because I can think of plenty of problems that unregulated space industry could cause.

Industry requires infrastructure and support, when speaking space terms everything is way more expensive so cost cutting will be rampant on all systems. Centralized space communication hub? No, we're gonna be bombarded with signals since maintaining the equipment on ground is cheaper (astrology sciences would suffer). Way to many objects in an orbital plane? Not their problem till eventually it becomes a catastrophic event as our own planet can become (Kessler Syndrome). More mass requires more fuel? Dump all the junk at every opportunity clogging space lanes (micro meteors and radiation will no longer be the main safety concern for travel).

I could go on and on, think about the current state of shipping and logistics. We already have events where ships were forced to sit for weeks outside of docks waiting to be unloaded (source). The space faring ships will only increase in size. What do you do with the useless containers they ship the contents back to earth with? The cost would be too high for re-usability getting it back into space. What about the workers who are at an unregulated site and their conditions?

I agree it's a conundrum of how do we advance when advancement causes destruction. It's something I've wrestled with when considering the Fermi paradox. Either you live harmoniously with the planet and die when it's environment changes, or you use that sucker up and get out of dodge before the next mass extinction takes you and nearly all of the living creatures out. I'm hoping in the future we meet some neighbors that can show a middle ground works well to persuade out current trajectory.

Huh, I was forced in my early years to be raised around very conservative and racist individuals so your use of the word and validation for it's usage feels very much like my childhood experience. To each their own though, the commonality is just interesting to me when I saw your first comment.