I took quantum physics with Prof. Kroemer. At the beginning it was standing room only with about 30 students. By the time finals came around there were six of us. Brutal. I've got some stories about that guy. RIP.
I first read about prof Kroemer when I was researching on semiconductor heterojunctions. Later on I learnt about his lemma and his quote always stayed with me
>The principal applications of any sufficiently new and innovative technology always have been – and will continue to be - applications created by that technology.
Would love to read about any interesting stories you may have about him.
I don't quite understand the singling out of women. The men have been doing this too[0]. And Americans are committing crimes just so they can go to prison and get healthcare.
It is shocking that ANY women are doing this, that's why. There has long been some small number of men, usually homeless ones, willing to commit crimes to go to jail. It's one of the downsides of having humane jails, I suppose.
This may seem silly but step 0 of every alternative ROM install is always what? "Backup your phone." But they never tell the user how. If you're really going to target "non-tech savvy folk" you can't just leave important steps at "you figure it out."
The context is that it's somebody else setting up what's basically a dumb phone for family members. I agree that custom roms are a terrible idea for non-tech savvy folks if they have to set it up themselves, but in this specific narrow case it's a good solution.
That's correct. I wouldn't recommend a custom ROM to an average smartphone user, but when you have someone in your life that's dedicated to tech support and you have custom needs, it's a good idea IMHO.
I consider helping my family with their tech stuff a privilege, not a burden. They help me with so much, why wouldn't I want to guide and support them on things I am knowledgeable about?!
Favorite part and best part. When the large majority of advertisers block advertisements there's really no room to complain when anyone else does the same.
"[RSS is] an easy way for readers to quickly discover released and updated articles." This is true. And there's nothing in that statement about how frequently a site updates.
Telling sites to reduce the number of entries in a feed and telling users to decrease the refresh frequency is a bad idea for sites that update frequently. Very few self-hosted rss readers allow for per feed refresh rates (freshrss is the only one I've found that does I think) so to capture everything on sites that update frequently but have tiny feed sizes I have to run separate cronjobs. That's after asking them to increase the feed size.
Having readers honour HTTP Cache-Control / Expires headers and/or RSS skipHours would allow the server side to control things, dynamically if necessary. Eg, after a bit of discussion, and bug fixes on both sides, Feeder (SpaceCowboys) is now interacting with my feed well in terms of polling rate, while Amazon and Apple continue to blindly pound me (even with gzip disabled for Apple!) every few minutes for a feed that updates ~monthly...
Musk has repeatedly claimed he allows what the law allows. Well, court orders are legally binding which is why people can be found in contempt of court and jailed for violating them. That's the case in the US and I assume in Brasil as well otherwise orders would be meaningless. People like Musk believe they can pick and choose what laws and rules apply to them.
Brazilian law does not allow what this judge is doing. Censorship is unconstitutional, especially that of a political nature. Yet he's essentially given himself unlimited powers to unilaterally censor anyone he wants and has been doing so completely unopposed for about half a decade now.
It started in 2019 when some magazine ran a damning article on one of these judges. The court reacted by declaring war on this so called "misinformation" and started giving itself more and more power until it assumed the role of investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. It's as ridiculous as it sounds. There's some legal basis for the supreme court doing that for crimes which happened inside the physical supreme court itself but they stretched that to cover all of Brazil since the "attacks" came from the internet.
That's how the so called "fake news" inquisition started and it continues to this day, and it's under the umbrella of that inquisition that he's demanding that Twitter censor others.
During the 2022 elections the supreme court' engaged in political censorship which violates the brazilian constitution. Everything that was embarrassing for Lula somehow became "fake news". I saw them censor a documentary before it was even published, without having even watched it. Such aggressive before-the-fact censorship has not been seen in these lands since the military dictatorship of the last century.
Nobody is being "censored". But brazilian law allows the removal of content in several circumstances. You just ignore the context that there was a network of coordinated accounts trying to disrespect electoral rules haring disinformation about elections and also threatening authorities while a possible coup was being architected. In the past people were also criminally charged, and also had content removed for threatening Bolsonaro. But for far right extremists, it is "dictatorship" and illegal when they discover that the same laws applies for them too.
No, it's pretty clear cut. They censored. Let's consider the simplest possible example of a censored political statement: "Lula is a socialist". It's not a crime, it's not defamation, it's not hate speech, it's not even an insult since he's openly proud of being a comminist. Yet it was censored. I saw it happen in real time. The justification was "fake news". You yourself come in these threads about Brazil to talk about "misleading falsehoods" and how the court is justified in censoring them.
So we have to resolve once and for all whether that statement is true or false. We cannot break from this loop until we determine whether he's a socialist or not. Once we have determined that, we can determine whether the court had "justification" for censoring the accusation.
So tell me. Do you dispute the fact he's a communist? Do you have any doubt at all? Be honest.
You keep ignoring that simple question. Discussion of this matter with you simpply cannot continue until you answer it.
When you finally do, it's going to go in one of two directions. Either you admit that he is in fact a communist, in which case the supreme court judges censored the truth for political gain which violates the constitution. Or you keep insisting that he isn't a communist, I present proof that he is a communist, and then conclude that the supreme court judges censored the truth for political gain which violates the constitution.
If you say that Lula is communist, you do not know what is communism. All your replies goes in this direction. I doubt a lot that someone was banned because just posted "he is socialist" (even if in fact he is more an adept of the more general labor movement, but could be considered a weak form of socialism). People probably is banned for spreading distorted information or for disrespecting electoral laws. If you say that someone was banned JUST because said that he is socialist, and the person have no relationship with the organized spread of disinformation during elections, nor commited any other infraction, then you indeed would have a point. But I doubt. I could post "Lula is socialist" in Twitter and I doubt that this would annoy someone, this is not even an offensive thing. Moreover, it is not Lula but the justice court that ordered the removal. Most of the court is composed by the same judges that ordered Lula to be imprisoned and denied several of his appeals to be freed in the recent past. And the electoral justice is the same that already forbade Lula's party of using materials that remembered that Bolsonaro supported the military dictatorship saying that the material that despicted simulated torture was too graphical to be used in electoral propaganda.
> Moreover, it is not Lula but the justice court that ordered the removal. Most of the court is composed by the same judges that ordered Lula to be imprisoned and denied several of his appeals to be freed in the recent past.
Should your comment be banned for spreading distorted information? Sergio Moro, a first instance judge, sentenced Lula for 9 years in 2018. A second instance judge reviewed the case and increased the sentence to 12 years. In 2019 the supreme court changed the understanding that allowed people sentenced in second instance to be imprisoned releasing him and dozens of organized crime bosses from jail. In 2021 the supreme court nullified his sentence arguing that it lacked jurisdiction so he was completely free and just in time to dispute the elections. No judge that sentenced Lula is a member of the supreme court. Actually one of the first things he did was appoint his lawyer to the supreme court.
"A prisão de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ocorreu no dia 7 de abril de 2018, após o ex-presidente se entregar à Polícia Federal (PF) no Sindicato dos Metalúrgicos do ABC em São Bernardo do Campo, na Grande São Paulo, e durou até o dia 8 de novembro de 2019, após o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) ter derrubado a prisão de condenados após a segunda instância. Lula ficou preso por 1 ano, 7 meses e 1 dia (580 dias)."
