A 16 pack of extra-strength paracetamol, which is more than enough to kill you in one sitting, is 65p at Tesco.
Do you really think someone intent on killing himself will look at a blister pack and think, "You know, if this was in a bottle I'd go through with it, but this doesn't seem worth it, it's way too much work to take me own life"?
Many people who commit (or attempt) suicide aren't really intent on killing themselves. There is ample evidence than putting even relatively minor barriers in the way, making it so that people have to slow down and really reflect on what they are doing is enough to stop some people in their tracks and make them reconsider what they are about to do.
There is no reason any company of any size should run out of IPv4 addresses internally, IF they are doing proper IP management. If I were to wager a guess I'd say there was a lot of waste going on, issuing /24s or larger to teams when all they need are /29s etc. It adds up over time. Once they exhaust private IP space they can always buy more at auction. They are Amazon after all, there's no shortage of money. This is just mismanagement of resources.
That's generally the premise behind "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", as opposed to "guilty whenever the histrionic internet mob and its tech enablers deem it so".
Except, and I know you must have read this somewhere else by now, that Youtube is not the State.
Your employer (should you have one) doesn't need to wait until a court of law proves you guilty of a stealing paperclips before they fire you, and a restaurant doesn't have to wait until a court proves that you are being a public disturbance before they kick you out.
A private corporation has the right to do whatever they want with their product/service unless they are compelled otherwise by the State. Russell Brand is free to sue Youtube in court if he believes he has been inappropriately damaged, as you do.
Unfortunately for him and all his fans, this isn't hearsay from randos coming out of Reddit/Tumblr, it's a direct accusation with evidence and witnesses in an investigation being conducted by his former employers and the UK police.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, YouTube demonitized all Irish because they unilaterally decided they're all plonkers and they're a private company and they can do what they want. Because that's the level of absurdity here.
Nor do your examples hold water. This isn't a situation of "you were caught stealing paperclips on video". Rather, it's more a case of Sally the tart from accounting has accused you of fingering her in a pub toilet ten years ago when you were both drunk and now ten years later she decides she's upset so let's engage the digital lynch mob and proceed with ruining your life because we all know women never lie.
10%?! 10% is huge. So we should assume presumption of guilt with a 10% error rate?
If 10% of all planes crashed, you would never set foot on one. For comparison, the chance of dying in a plane crash is 0%... to the 7th or 8th decimal place.
The people that should be ashamed are those making false accusations, and those dumb enough to believe them.
You can presume or do anything you want with statistics, but your example was gross and if you think 10% chance of it being correct means you should spout it…yikes
But saying things like that, well..its bad for victims of false accusation as well, notice how I didn’t specify?
Good news is, people who put the type of comments out there like yours - they are their own reward - enjoy the world you are making for yourself, il steer well clear
A single person can have different standards for different situations. Your plane crash example is not about guilt, it's directly about life and death. The threat of being wrong about Russell Brand's alleged sexual assault is quite far removed from my own fear of death. If I mistakenly believe the allegations, I get a personal lesson in the risks of jumping to conclusions and trust YouTube a bit less, but I can still rest relatively easy knowing that criminal courts in the US still use the presumption of innocence. If I mistakenly believe in Brand's innocence, I trust myself a little less, and the next time I find out about a famous stranger's rape allegations I read into it and ask myself whether the denials read like Brand's denials.
But I digress. In this case, YouTube, not a random commenter on Hacker News, had a decision to make. Consider these four possibilities:
1. YouTube demonitizes, allegations are false. YouTube gets social ire from people online and angry politicians, and a few complaints from advertisers, but even the angry people will probably continue to use YouTube due to switching costs.
2. YouTube demonitizes, allegations are true. YouTube pats itself on the back in hindsight. Little changes, but the status quo was good for YouTube anyway.
3. YouTube doesn't demonitize, allegations are false. YouTube temporarily loses a few advertisers before the truth comes out, but things return to the status quo in a few months.
4. YouTube doesn't demonitize, allegations are true. A few advertisers leave for a year or longer. News organizations eagerly field complaints from advertisers and disgruntled YouTube employees.
None of the possibilities are devastating, including money-wise. On the other hand, the fourth possibility is worst for YouTube's reputation by a significant margin, and at a 90% chance too.
Non-sequitor. YT does not need the power of a court decision to take this action. It's basically the same question of "Who made YouTube President"; it's irrelevant.
> Let's say, for the sake of argument, YouTube demonitized all Irish because they unilaterally decided they're all plonkers and they're a private company and they can do what they want. Because that's the level of absurdity here.
I mean YT could decide that your country isn't eligible for YT depending on local laws and block content. Which they do.
Well, I assume Youtube and their community are the judges and juries of Youtube.
I am merely one humble judge and jurist of these comment threads, and I rule that your comment here is disgusting and ignorant.
I recommend a sentence of 100 hours of civics and legal Youtube to help alleviate you of your ignorance. And 1 hour of berating following a public reading of your comment to a group of female accountants dressed as your mother.
Yes we should all be worried about the local coffee shop who can barely make payroll manipulating our network traffic. Fortunately we can now proxy all traffic through an internet advertising company, with credentials tying it to our identity. We should all consider ourselves fortunate this option now exists. Who knows what Sally's doing with my DNS queries in exchange for a cappuccino. Might as well have Google hoover it all up so they can keep us safe.
It’s not the coffeeshop, it’s the Wi-Fi vendor that gives them some perks for implementing some sort of wall on the network. Like when you join the network and have to click through to get access, that’s a vendor that could be data mining
You could get to the truth by reading between the lines in the whistleblower report after they fired Mudge, whom Jack brought in as an infosec consultant. I'd suggest reading it, it's quite an eye opener to pre-Musk Twitter. Notably their security culture was described as being 10 years behind industry standards, over half of their nearly 500,000 servers were running unpatched OSes that were EOL and no longer receiving updates, over 25% of employee computers had security updates disabled, etc. Over half their employees had access to prod. It reads like the dumpster fire you would expect from a year 1 startup yet their literal army of essential, irreplaceable, webshit cybergeniuses allowed all this to happen under their watch. Any rational person would read this and conclude, "What were these people doing all day?"
He means they were overpaid wankers who went to the office to mostly socialize and take advantage of free gourmet food. This isn't hyperbole, these people proudly documented it on their social media accounts and I've seen the footage.
The fact that Twitter hasn't gone completely offline in a fireball as predicted over and over by these same people itself proves they were redundant.
I've read Richard's blog (his "political notes") and I come away with a feeling that his extreme politics at the very least clouds his thinking, if not directly influences it.
The end result is he carefully picks and chooses topics for which he is passionate about (in the context of computing and 'software freedom') nearly right up and down party lines.
>56oz according to google which lists beef at 7g/ounce and mushrooms at 0.9/ounce
Edit: legumes are more practical, green peas give you 2g/oz and peanuts can be 7g/oz shelled according to google, (though they are different proteins than the beef). Mushrooms are good for texture and some like shitaki can give the umami taste, but they aren’t a nutritional meat substitute on their own.
Do you really think someone intent on killing himself will look at a blister pack and think, "You know, if this was in a bottle I'd go through with it, but this doesn't seem worth it, it's way too much work to take me own life"?