IronKrill

All I can read this as is that 1 in 4 Americans are still delusional.

Ah yes, people slow down near cops for the love of the game, not because they're afraid of a ticket or jail time.

I think it would depend who you ask. I consider myself vegan and would have no major issue with someone using roadkill for parts. I mean, I would find it disgusting and could never myself, but if they want to and still call themselves vegan, I see no problem with it as the harm has already been done to the animal. Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest - what's dead is dead.

I'm gonna take a safe guess that London has generally much smaller streets and cars than the majority of America, so it would be safer yes. Outside of the cities and a couple of streets in smaller town centres, most cars are likely to be going 50km/h or more down a road with spotty or missing sidewalks and there's probably a 50% chance of it being an F150. Now I have had good luck with drivers here slowing for me, but it only takes one time to be permanently crippled... So is it "that" bad? Depends what your "that" is, but it is worse yes.

I believe that's the joke, but I'm glad someone explained this for those that don't know.

How do you think they make hot dogs?

Soulseek is the opposite of "tagged consistently".

I hung around anti-SJW groups in 2016 and I'm assuming not much has changed.

Basically ANTIFA is painted as a violent group that claims normal things as "fascist", same as the "leftists" call "normal people" "nazis". People in these right-leaning circles get shown videos of protests after they go violent and innocent people / property starts getting damaged and are told it's ANTIFA (I don't know how much actually is ANTIFA, I don't follow this stuff anymore). The name of the organisation does not matter because the right does not believe the things they are protesting against to be fascist, thus ANTIFA becomes a lie in their mind.

Looking at it from a leftist perspective, think of tactics like all the bills named the "Protect Our Children" act (or some such) that tries to strip rights away under an innocent-sounding name. Right-wing sees ANTIFA the same as you would see these law names: a deception to calm the masses.

For anything more than a short walk I always grab: Water bottle (or 2), hand sanitiser, wallet, phone, and keys. I don't like being thirsty.

Fair enough. I actually posted my own comment after I downvoted Arcane's due to their overly agressive and absolutist tone. It's hard to have a discussion when personal attacks are in every reply.

~~if I write a loophole in your employer's code, like a patch, that keeps them from having to pay you, and they like not having to pay you, I haven't done anything egregious or unethical?~~

~~I don't really care about the ethics in the Revanced situation nor the greater adblocking scene. That's a moral question for individuals to answer. From a legal perspective, I don't agree with the removal of original code. While I don't know of a legal precedent for the digital age, the closest physical comparison I can make is to the distribution of a lock-pick or a gun. And we don't prosecute lock-pick manufacturers for selling to a thief, we prosecute the thief for breaking into someone's home with it. Exempting cases where the actual product is illegal, such as specific gun models, but as far as I am aware there is no such law against any software (yet). Even if there were, I doubt it would all under the perview of DMCA. Thus my reasoning for saying this is an abuse of DMCA and my reason for distaste towards the situation.~~

~~Bringing this back to your original comment:~~

~~I wouldn’t expect Spotify to just let people use premium services for free. Fuck Spotify, right there with y’all on that, but this isn’t egregious or unethical behavior for them.~~

~~I wouldn't expect them to either! But I also don't expect them to try and take down material they have no right to take down and I would consider that to be a bit 'egregious'.~~

Edit: You know, I should have actually done the research before commenting. Anyway, I looked further into DMCA intent and it covers some circumvention tools which may(?) apply to adblockers, although I haven't heard of that being tested in court before. Leaving my comment here since it's already federated anyway.

Except that ReVanced is not distributing anything of Spotify's (to my knowledge). By patching Spotify's app on the user device instead of providing downloads to pre-patched apps, the only thing ReVanced is providing is their own code. The reason they use a patcher system is exactly to avoid frivilous abuses of DMCA such as this. They are not infringing Spotify's copyright in any way.