scratchee

I’ve certainly been there, shocked to realise my personal slice of reality was unusual. At least in this case, it’s a good problem to have.

But surely equality has been achieved in the last few months, this all feels so very January. People are so much more open minded now than in those dark days of the past. Why waste time even discussing such outdated attitudes that totally and completely disappeared in February and are certain to never return?!

It may be in a scientific paper, but this is more of an anecdote about the various issues the author encountered, rather than something intended to be actionable and clearly delineated as you’d expect in the body of a scientific article. Therefore a more literary style is appropriate for this section.

My mental model is that bullet points are for when you expect a reader to go over the points with a highlighter, prose for when you want to produce an emotional response. This feels more like the latter.

Advertising company finally gets memo that threats to the function of the advertising ecosystem are actually also threats to them, eventually.

Took them a while to do that maths.

The stowaway was on the outside. Therefore could have attached after they checked. I doubt very much that it’s practical to require constant vigilance from all travellers at all times (do travellers need to hire temporary guards for their vehicles when going to the toilet in order to comply with this law?)

Also, ignoring that, it’s braindead to not make an exception when the people in question self-report and fix the issue, it’s directly undermining the goals to punish people for vigilance (even belated vigilance).

But ignoring all of that, the law (or implementation) is flawed. The stated goal of the law is to discourage negligence, but negligence needs to be measured against a fair yardstick like “could a reasonable person catch this easily”, not just “were you smarter than whoever tried to hide on your vehicle?”. Defining negligence competitively like they seem to be doing isn’t reasonable and I hope these people win and force the law to be interpreted more judiciously. Next they’ll be fining old ladies who get scammed for “negligently supporting criminals financially”.

Ironic that his polite human-scale protest wouldn’t have gotten much attention if the police hadn’t turned it into national news.

That or some incentive to pressure landlords to do it themselves.

But saying that, you’re right, this should be the renters prerogative, not the landlords, unless the landlords paying the bills (which is rarely a good idea in my opinion experience)

Agreed, I’d be entirely fine with legal enforcement of the ISO definitions in advertising, no need to air historical dirty laundry outside the profession

Yeah, it’ll definitely be worse using a less complete constellation, but at least you can probably trust them to not fuck around and ruin military operations out of malicious political flailing, or whatever it is that Musk is doing constantly, so that’ll be a nice change of pace.

Agreed, but do you pick the de-facto standard of the entire industry (minus storage advertising) or the de joure standard of an outside body that has made a very slight headway into a very resistant industry.

The reality is that people will be confused no matter what you do, but at least less people will be confused if you ignore the mibibyte, because less people have even heard of it

You’re not actually wrong. The Goa'uld were indeed far too slow moving, and it was their ultimate weakness, they weren’t able to keep up with the pace of change around them, even despite a lack of competition in their evolutionary niche.

Or possibly because of a lack of competition. Another object lesson in the dangers from having a lack of biodiversity in our ecosystem.

True, I guess we need a Batman to handle this Joker, the “police” have been overwhelmed