Anyone who can look at the news and not understand never will.

We’re past the time of understanding the situation is my point. It’s time to riot.

And quibilling about how accurate a metaphor is at any given time is just as useful?

Let me try this.

It doesn’t matter if the metaphor doesn’t stay consistent or whatever.

Because anyone who would be swayed by a metaphor like that is already swayed. It’s time to get in the streets.

That’s not what a metaphor is?

It’s an analogy, not a script. Of course it’s not a perfect fit. Metaphors never do. And of course it changes and life itself changes.

Your getting mad about a metaphor when you should be getting mad about facsim itself. Getting mad at nothing is just distraction.

So what’s your point then. That the may be fascist but the Hitler comparisons are a line to far for you?

Okay,

They’re still fascist as fuck.

Okay,

So why should reinevent a standard when one that serves functionally the same purpose with one of implied consent?

Edit: my problem isn’t robots.txt. It’s implied consent.

If you are ever thinking, I wonder if I should ask, the answer is always yes. Doesn’t matter the situation. If you are not 1000% sure you have consent, you don’t. That’s just my ethics.

If you want to propose a new standard, go nuts. But implied consent is not it.

From your own wiki link

robots.txt is the filename used for implementing the Robots Exclusion Protocol, a standard used by websites to indicate to visiting web crawlers and other web robots which portions of the website they are allowed to visit.

How is fedidb not an “other web robot”?

Robots.txt started I’m 1994.

It’s been a consensus for decades.

Why throw it out and replace it with imied consent to scrape?

That’s why I said legally there’s nothing they can do. If people want to scrape it they can and will.

This is strictly about consent. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should yes?

I guess I haven’t read a convincing argument yet why robots.txt should be ignored.

Why invent implied consent when complicit explicit has been the standard in robots.txt for ages now?

Legally speaking there’s nothing they can do. But this is about consent, not legality. So why use implied?

deleted by creator

And if my grandma had wheels she’d be a bicycle.

If it’s disadvantageous to the money in control of it, it won’t happen.

That hasn’t always been true. This meme is older than Microsoft being open source friendly.

The reason it doesn’t disprove it is because the assumption “time travel works” is really just saying, if we ignore some basic rules of physics, what happens to what’s left? It’s a nonesense premise to debate what is basically nothing more than science fiction.

Could the rules we know about the universe be wrong? Absolutely! But discovering those new rules is what will answer that question. Till then, we might as well try and say Harry Potter is just quantum mechanics.

legally speaking

Which law?

Because US law requires intent, but I’m not sure ICC/ICJ have the same requirements.

They were specifically told the itinerary of the aid workers.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/world-central-kitchen-jacob-flickinger-partner/story?id=108866378

“All three vehicles were carrying civilians; they were marked as WCK vehicles; and their movements were in full compliance with Israeli authorities, who were aware of their itinerary, route, and humanitarian mission,” WCK said in a statement Thursday.

I’m not sure how it can be accidental if you were told about it in advance.

And even if for a moment, that the person who aimed the guns didn’t know, it was someone’s job to make sure they did. Someone knew.