The list says there’s not enough space for that item.

The ask that YouTube manage their system better. Currently, they assume that a copyright claim is valid unless proven otherwise, and it is difficult for content creators to actually get them to review a claim to determine if it is invalid. So, a lot of legitimate users that post videos without actually violating anybody’s copyright end up being permanently punished for somebody illegitimate claim. What we want is for YouTube to, one, make it more difficult or consequential to file a bad claim, and two, make it easier to dispute a bad claim.

However, that’s not going to happen because the YouTube itself is legally responsible for copyrighted material that is posted to their platform. Because of that, they are incentivised to assume a claim is valid lest they end up in court for violating somebody’s legitimate copyright. Meaning that the current system entails a private company adjudicating legal questions where they are not an impartial actor in the dispute.

So your concern is legitimate, but it’s ignoring the fact that we already are in a situation where a private company is prosecuting fraud. People want it to change so that it is more in favor of the content creators (or at least, in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty), but it would ultimately be better if they were not involved in it whatsoever. However, major copyright holders pushed for laws that put the onus on YouTube because it makes it easier for them, and it’s unlikely for those laws to change anytime soon. That’s what I’d say we should be pushing for, but it’s also fair to say that the Content ID system is flawed and allows too much fraud to go unpunished.

You’re talking about the court system. They are talking about Content ID. YouTube makes it easy to submit faulty copyright claims with little repercussions if they fail, so there are more fraudulent claims than you’d see in the actual court system. They want YouTube to penalize the abuse of their system more strongly so people that upload videos don’t have to deal with so much shit.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it means to cut in a wasteful manner, particularly in terms of fabric. From elsewhere, it looks like it’s also used in construction in regards to cutting material such that the remaining sections are not usable for other purposes.

However, I’m not sure how stale bread discourages such cuts.

If you want similar, yet opposite, I would suggest Sebastian Lague. He has a slow output of high quality videos, which are interesting “coding adventures” where he goes in depth about learning some aspect of software. He’s much more relaxed than Code Bullet, but he’s similar in that the videos are primarily about the process of implement some project and showing the failures along the way.

I can’t read this article due to a paywall, but I know that Janet Yellen has been leading an effort to set a minimum corporate tax rate worldwide. I don’t know what her stance is on wealth taxes in general, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s just trying to ensure that a minimum corporate tax rate work is not derailed by changing the target to something more controversial.

I could understand it if they are a passenger in the vehicle, but I don’t understand how they can believe that operating a car doesn’t count as driving.

I was more so responding in regards to the original posters comment regarding the lack of justification as distinguishing this act from murder. If the police officers were allowed to kill him under the law, it is not murder. Murder, by my sources (which show the English-language definition) as well as yours (which show the legal definition), is a legal term that applies to a subset of acts of homicide.

Murder is a specific kind of homicide which is defined as the “unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

• Merriam-Webster
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Dictionary.com

He’s referring to what he said when the Senate acquited Trump after he was impeached by the House.

Trump’s lawyers are trying to argue that he can’t be prosecuted by the courts for actions he took as president unless he is first impeached and convicted in Congress for those actions. When Trump was impeached and acquitted in 2021, McConnell stated that Congress can’t impeach him as he is no longer in office and that the matter is an issue for the criminal justice system.

As shit as McConnell is, he is not confused with his dates right now, and his statements from 2021 are very relevant to this case and have been discussed in the news a lot recently.

I’m also not sure what’s wrong with your quoted text. Nothing about it sounds confused to me.

US News (Feb 14, 2021): Text of McConnell’s Speech

President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn’t get away with anything yet – yet.

We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.

deleted by creator

I prefer Software Engineer, mostly because I studied at an engineering school and have a degree in Software Engineering. My actual titles have varied throughout my career, but I overall consider myself a software engineer.

If you ever use SQL Server Management Studio, you can experience the opposite. Whenever there’s an update, you’ll get a notification in the application, but to actually install it, you need to go to Microsoft’s website to download the latest version and install it yourself. Chrome, on the other hand, updates itself upon restart without requiring anything special from the user.

As a software developer, I really like that part. It means that websites I work on only need to consider the features supported in the latest version of major browsers rather than the last several (as was the case with Internet Explorer).

So, it’s nice and something that I remember really appreciating when Chrome was getting popular. But it’s still a weird thing to brag about.

It sounds like this it is actively preventing people from getting divorced.

This is something that was brought to me by folks in my community who shared that it was a huge problem,” Aune said. In a committee meeting, she shared the story of a woman affected by the existing law, saying: “Not only was she being physically and emotionally abused, but there was reproduction coercion used. When she found out she was pregnant and asked a lawyer if she could get a divorce, she was essentially told no. It was so demoralizing for her to hear that. She felt she had no options.”

Oh, and once you build that, I’ll move in and expect you to build the rest of the house on top of it.

Yeah, I found it on my laptop and was too lazy to send it over to my phone where I was on lemmy. So I typed it up, and then I actually sent the link to my phone when it was pointed out that it was broken.

Well, maybe lazy isn’t the right word. But I was too something.

It was an interview with Jonathan Swan about COVID-19 where Trump had a bunch of papers with graphs trying to show that the US was doing well with cases. The paper he handed over showed the rates of deaths per case (though Trump didn’t seem to understand the graph), and Swan was asking him about the high rate of deaths in the US when looking at the total population of the country.

https://youtu.be/NmrEfQG6pIg

I like Robert Delaunay, and also his wife, Sonia Delaunay. Their work involves a lot of bright, vibrant colors. It also was rather abstract or impressionistic, which I enjoyed. I think I like Piet Mondrian for similar reasons. Jan Sluyters would be another.

I also like JMW Turner a lot. I’m a sucker for lighting and dynamic skies in paintings, and his work features that very prominently. Frederic Edwin Church is another painter along these lines that I really enjoy.

A more contemporary passive that I like is Nina Tokhtaman Valetova. Her work also involves a lot of bold colors.

Same thing with me and chess in high school. I learned TrueBASIC, and I didn’t learn about arrays or subroutines. But, I did manage to make a chess application that two people could play a game of chess on. It highlighted legal moves when you clicked on a piece and ensured that only legal moves were made. It also showed the captured pieces to the side of the board. I think I had it set up so that you could only promote to a previously captured piece, but all the other rules were implemented properly (or at least, I assumed they were).

The implementation involved a bunch of variables for each individual chess piece and a bunch of if statements inside a loop. I remember describing arrays and explaining that I wished they existed, but never actually found out they did until I was finished. I don’t know how many lines of code it was, but when I copied it into Word, and it spanned about 350 pages in total.

Part of me is proud of the accomplishment. Another part is horrified.

The executive branch is a bureaucracy that has to follow procedures. The president can direct the agency to start these processes, and that’s what he done. The HHS has done the necessary work to show that cannabis is deserving of a lower schedule according to the Controlled Substances Act. It is now up to the DEA to review that data and reschedule it accordingly. This is the process stipulated by the law, and the executive branch must adhere to it. If they don’t, it will be undone in the courts.

The alternative route would be for Congress to pass a new law to specifically legalize cannabis, but they do not have the numbers, so the Biden administration has to follow the process outlined in the existing laws. He’s done what he is legally able to do, and it’s more than any of his predecessors have. It may be slow, but it’s pretty much a fast as the law allows.