antonim

During the campaign I've seen Walz described as down-to-earth, approachable and attractive to the working class voter base.

Fucking yikes.

You haven't actually suggested any way in which the guy's work and behaviour could be viewed "three-dimensionally". While I can agree that discourse especially online slips into dehumanisation of (real or imagined) enemies too easily... this is really not a case where this is the incorrect approach.

Edit: Regarding the guy's family, I can agree that they did not deserve the death of the father/husband. But that does not really concern the guy by himself, his own moral character, it's someone else's problem. When a criminal gets sent to jail or executed, does anyone really give a crap about how much his family will suffer from that? Not really, the criminal is assumed to be a morally independent being that can tell right from wrong by himself, and his failure to do that is his own.

Thank you, this is interesting to read. I also use ISMLP from time to time and can only imagine how valuable it is to actual musicians. Now, it is simply true that sheet music that is under copyright is, indeed, under copyright, but as ISMLP focuses on classical music it's not such a big deal, as much of it is in public domain (many 20th century classics still aren't, I believe, such as Stravinsky, Shostakovich...), at least the original old editions.

just take a look at this short list taken from your own list of “banned books” affected by the decision:

“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain (first published 1884-85) “The Awakening” by Kate Chopin (first published 1899) “An American Tragedy” by Theodore Dreiser (first published 1925) “Candide” by Voltaire (first published in 1759, also in English translation, again in English 1762) “The Decameron” by Giovanni Bocaccio (written ca.1353, published in English by 1620)

All five of the originals are public domain worldwide, even the two translated into English.

This part lacks important detail, though. The two translations are likely to be new ones, not from 17th/18th century, so they have new copyright too. The other two books may be under legitimate new copyright because of the supplementary materials or textological work. I talked about this with some people on reddit who I guess were knowledgeable about this, and basically when an editor works on a new edition they might introduce corrections to the text based on the manuscripts or some other version of the text (e.g. censored sections). This is work that should (I guess) also be copyrighted. Now, I haven't gotten a completely satisfying answer about what really can be covered by this, because it can be difficult to explain whether mere modification of spelling of e.g. Shakespeare (original <walk'd> = modern ) counts as copyrightable work, or does it require more extensive work (such as dealing with the textual variations in early Shakespeare editions, which are mind-boggling).

Originally that was indeed what the lawsuit was about, but the publishers went further with their demands.

I use W10 and I've gotten two full-screen ads for W11 in the last two weeks.

Structure purist, ingredient neutral: wolves are bees.

I don't, in fact, think that every image of a naked person is pornography, so I won't defend that view.

John Cage - 4'33'' megamix

Here's an another uncomfortable statistic: most of ASOIAF was published before 9/11.

Personally I gave up after AFFC, which I read around a decade ago. The quality of writing had plummeted, and it was increasingly obvious the series is going to take way too long to be finished.

The guy should just give up, relive himself of the duty and the audiences of the frustration, and spend his remaining years peacefully writing Dunk and Egg stories.

It’s basically a figure study in 4 parts.

Maybe you should slap your ophthalmologist instead. You're acting as if the picture does not represent what it literally represents, or as if it does not have the effect that it clearly does have and which it also intended to have. I won't argue any further against denial of reality.

Well, I guess that would be fair, as long as we don't confuse sexual appeal with artistic value. (Saying this in particular due to a poster guy ITT who said an another poster critical of the painting should "get some culture".) But the fact that it is posted on an art sublemmy and not some NSFW sublemmy, suggests that the confusion has occurred.

That's actually way more interesting than the stupid outrage that the original tweet is trying to stoke.