ChemicalRascal

Point three seems entirely noncredible to me. They were doing a thunder-run, by all appearances. That doesn't just happen. You don't accidentally cross the Rubicon, you don't just happen to go "whoopsie, we're in the Moscow Oblast, aren't we goofy goobers!".

And then the assertion: "However, I want to emphasize that image has always been a secondary concern for Putin." Isn't that just... objectively false? Image has always been huge for Putin. He presents himself as a strongman, a man able to lie to your face, but is so powerful that you, the Russian citizen, can do nothing about it.

I think Beau of the Fifth Column's hot take is more likely -- Wagner wanted out of the war for a host of reasons, they especially didn't want to be taken control of by the MoD and essentially dissolved into the state apparatus. So Prigozhin decided to gun for Moscow in order to be able to force Putin's hand and let Wagner return to Africa, doing the PMC stuff that Wagner has been running around doing for years. This has probably been something he's been trying to negotiate for a year or so, but it all just came to a head with Bahkmut and the new contracts MoD was trying to push.

Having indefinite trademarks will mean we will eventually run out of names, as every name will eventually be taken over many years.

This, I think, is the core of the issue for you, correct?

That's not how trademarks work. There are plenty of authors out there with the same name as other authors (like, literal authors, not in the general sense of creators of works). There are plenty of companies that have the same name as other companies, be that essentially the same or actually the same.

This ticks off the Joe example. Atari is a brand, that brand is IP, so that's a separate issue. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say about Atari there, though I'm pretty sure if the Atari trademark disappeared immediately on Atari's collapse you'd just see another company start trading as Atari, which under your prescription would be legal, and the world would be functionally identical in relation to the Atari trademark.

As a software engineer, well, it would be remarkably difficult for my industry to pay its workers if copyright didn't exist.

Hold up. What purpose, exactly, does having trademarks expire on the death of the author have? What do we gain from that?

Trademarks? Why...? All trademarks do is ensure consumers know who made a given product.

If I make cola, even if it's the same as Coca-Cola, shouldn't consumers be able to differentiate between my cola and Coca-Cola's cola?

If the answer is "I am cis" or "I am trans", what is the question?

The question would, to be blunt, be "are you cis or trans?", because "cis" and "trans" are just shorthand for "cisgender" and "transgender".

It's a question of very limited scope -- even if you were to reword it -- because in modern society, the exact detail of if someone is cis or trans isn't really practically important. If someone is a man, say, society cares a lot more about them being a man rather than being a cisgender man or a transgender man. (I'd say the same about women, but there's obviously a subset of society that is in the process of demonising trans women, so...)

I think the core issue you've found is that cis/trans-ness is something that only makes sense in the context of something else, the gender identity of the person in question.

The glaring oversight in your opinion is that all NSFW posts are clearly marked as NSFW, and desktop reddit along with all the mobile apps have settings requiring you to opt-in to view NSFW posts with further settings to actually display the image previews or hide them (default).

But not all NSFW content is porn. And turning on NSFW visibility is not the same thing as being subscribed to a porn sub.

Your whole argument is disingenuous and borders on concern trolling or pearl clutching. Reddit is full of porn and other NSFW images, so don't act like they're suddenly showing hard-core porn to a bunch of kids or something.

Okay, let's change the scenario a bit then. Let's say I magically know you have NSFW content turned on, on your Reddit account. We've never conversed.

I then, unprompted, start sending you links to hardcore pornographic images, in your DMs. Once every half hour or so.

Is that something you think would be totally fine? Do you seriously think I wouldn't be violating a lack of consent on your part? You've turned on visibility of NSFW posts, after all, you must be fine with seeing it!

Hope it comes back negative.

I was gonna smash out a few bike rides this weekend, but the BOM is predicting it's gonna rain… Why are we cursed so?

NTA. Your agent should have waited, or clarified, or even just communicated in any way, in order to continue inspecting the property. And even if it's such a huge problem that they missed one room, it's within their capacity as a functioning adult to come back another day to make sure the room isn't somehow in a terrible condition that isn't already reflected by the rest of the property.

But they're not the asshole either. Your housemate is, assuming they're stressing you out about this and making you worried that you're going to make him homeless. It sounds like his housing is a source of anxiety for him, but he shouldn't be putting that on you.

Opting in to NSFW content is not consenting to randomly have pornography thrown at you by a subreddit that wasn't a porn sub when you subscribed.

What the fuck, dude.

Majority of them did consent to the possibility of encountering such content. Thats the whole point of that check mark.

There's an enormous difference between "I'm okay with content considered NSFW, like descriptions of war and so on, being shown to me" and getting porn in your main page. That check box is not an "I consent to being shown porn" button.

Hold up, it was originally supposed to be a trade show for journalists. It's always been about the big corporations. They've always had a dominance over the event.

The problem was that E3 was seen by the public as something to desire access to, as being exclusive and so on. This drove the organising body to open it up to more general access. In doing so, the audience changed, so the content on display changed, and it became a shitty version of PAX.

And that's what killed it, in turn.