Judging by the tweet, the archive.is admin says the lack of the EDNS data causes many problems. Maybe it increases his operating costs too?
Archive.is a free service and goes offline frequently so I'm inclined to believe he's really trying to triage the problem queue, unless I'm missing something.
Plenty of other providers/projects are able to geo/load-balance based on many other factors, like request IP. I dunno, I just feel like it's a dumb hill to die on.
Venus is only a few weeks away from its inferior solar conjunction, which is approximately the point in its orbit (recurring about every 19 months) where it most closely approaches Earth: https://in-the-sky.org/news.php?id=20200603_11_100
Interestingly, Venus' brightness is currently near its peak, even though the conjunction itself is still several weeks away. At the point of closest approach, the planet will be almost 3x bigger in angular area than it is today, but we will be seeing a much smaller fraction of its sunlit side.
Actually, it was extremely bright here even before anyone ws in lockdown. I particularly remember when it was in the western sky near the moon several moons ago.
They just have more time now to actually look up. Venus is same as ever, the brightest object in the sky besides the Sun and the Moon. It was at its greatest elongation from the Sun in late March, so of course it's very visible.
YouTube also delists from search results content that details non-strawman evidence against the Apollo moon landings and videos of rockets appearing to hit the firmament, among many others. You can still find those videos with the same search terms by searching YouTube with Yandex or with a direct URL.
They also have unclear "hate speech" guidelines where they will remove videos and ban channels without specifying why.
The point is, this behavior is consistent with YouTube.
Goodbye civilization? Most people can't read? It's done?
No my friend, isolation seems to be getting to your head. "When I look out the window, only 10-15% are wearing masks". That's far more than many other places.
That top level comment is such a typical somewhat smart central European youngster (now maybe in their 30s, like me) that was heavily brainwashed the whole childhood how UE is soooo much superior and civilized, and the their own culture and people are so inferior because of backwards religion and backwards conservatism. For them, the unelected officials ruling UE is a pinacle of democracy, while lawfully elected politicians at home are dictators, and so on.
I was raised in the same environment in Poland, was a subject of the same UE-love brainwashing most of my youth, and have/had plenty of friends with the same view.
Well, for someone who left country between yours and OPs (Slovakia), which is in much better shape than Hungary now, and probably +-same as Poland (no hard numbers now), its kind of true. Mind you, EU is no saint but our countries benefit from it massively, and the drawbacks are comparably tiny.
There are nice, good and working things back home. But they are hugely overshadowed by amount of things that don't work as they should - social system, healthcare, high criminality, utter pervasive corruption on all levels. We also have huge issues with big roma population that all politicians gave up on long time ago. Nobody cares about them anymore, I'd say they are a ticking bomb.
On top of all that, many folks are xenophobic, if not outright racist. You can have wonderful deep kind relationship or encounters with strangers, but people can be proper selfish assholes on a level I haven't seen in the west. Politicians, always the worst scum of the given population, are a bad, corrupt joke through whole spectrum.
I could go on for hours. Why... I moved, just like millions others and didn't look back (not EU). Its nice to visit, but that's about it. I can see on most folks back home how not-really-happy they are, kinda OK is the norm.
I am Spanish and I see exactly the same thing here. How it's okay for Germany to rule over us because locals are so convinced our own country and its citizens are inferior. It's so sad, especially since it ends as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
These sorts of claims are standard fare for divisive far right parties. Apparently they work quite well given their political rise and the prevalence of that sort of rhetoric even in forums like this.
Funny how the left-wing Yanis Varoufakis probably agrees with that statement. But yeah, why don't you far right anyone who disagrees with the mainstream.
Why is it ok for people in North Dakota to have a say over me in Washington? Or for that matter why is it ok for people in Shoreline 5 km away to have a say over me in Seattle?
Because that's how we've agreed to organize. Economies of scale. The difference between Spaniards and Germans is smaller than you might expect.
I don't see why this is getting downvoted – it seems like a materially correct claim:
> “You’re going to pay that money,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said [to DoorDash] in court. “You don’t want to pay millions of dollars, but that’s what you bargained to do and you’re going to do it.”
There really isn't much room for interpretation, is there? Patreon is a tiny company, $5 million is ~1% of their value. If nothing else it would cause trouble with the liquidity.
It's probably being down voted for a couple of reasons.
1. The claim in the link that Patreon banning someone from using them to receive funding is tortious interference with a business relationship giving the people who wanted to donate that person a cause of action is extremely tenuous at best.
For an act to be tortious interference there has to be something wrong about that act other than just that it impacted the relationship between two other parties.
For example, if Patreon decided to kick off all black creators, that would be wrong regardless of whether or not it impacted any business relationships between those creators and others. A claim for tortious interference might be viable.
The bannings being complained about don't fall into any such protected category as far as I know.
2. The link is to a site that is generally unreliable. The author is a major pusher of conspiracy theories, pedophilia accusations, and the like which almost never stand up to scrutiny. For those rare things he publishes that are not those kind of things, there should always be a better source you can link to.
No one has time to fact check every article they read, so you want to get your articles from places that are mostly right with at most a rare goof, not places that are the other way around. Many people down vote for linking to the later kind of site, even if the particular article is one of their rare reasonable ones, because it makes more work for the reader than linking to a better site would have.
Although I find the claim of tortuous interference as extremely tenuous as you do your description of what is required for an act to be "wrong" is poor bordering on incorrect.
An act can be wrong for the purposes of tortuous interference if it is done to appropriate the benefits of the plaintiff's contract, is an independent or illegal wrong, or if the conduct was done for the sole purpose of injuring the plaintiff.
In this case it will be extremely difficult to proof that Patreon acted solely to injure the defendants.
What I was trying to get at was the idea stated by the Supreme Court of Oregon in Top Serv. Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 582 P.2d 1365 (1978) [1], cited by the California court in Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 376 (1995) [2]:
> In summary, such a claim is made out when interference resulting in injury to another is wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. Defendant's liability may arise from improper motives or from the use of improper means. They may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other regulation, or a recognized rule of common law, or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession
which I came across in this article on the elements of tortuous interference claims under California law [3].
"Defendant's liability may arise from improper motives or from the use of improper means." Given this quote from your source the description you presented of what is required to meet the standard is still inaccurate. Based upon the quote the action taken doesn't have to be improper. Only the motivation for the action has to be improper.
>The author is a major pusher of conspiracy theories, pedophilia accusations, and the like which almost never stand up to scrutiny.
I counter your ad hominem with a substantive appeal to authority and evidence to the contrary: the author is not only a lawyer, but the one who broke open the Epstein case (pedophilia accusation conspiracy theory that stood up to scrutiny) with a Florida filing alongside the Miami Herald.
That is absurd. If you can't be bothered to read the comment, why vote on it? If you can't be bothered to click the link and skim it over, then how does your opinion add anything of value to the site's ranking system it doesn't already know?
