• 0 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle



  • The resolution said some stuff about pesticides the US didn’t like.

    The resolution encroached on other trade agreements the US would rather pursue.

    The US doesn’t want to transfer technology and wants to keep its own IP rights.

    The US doesn’t want extraterritorial obligations that the language of the resolution suggests. It thinks all countries should manage their own shit internally.

    The US claimed that it domestically supports the right to food and promotes policies to further that goal but doesn’t want it to be an enforceable obligation.






  • He’s calling out Walz service history when really he has so much less service history than Walz. And as far as I can tell the “stolen valor” stuff is made up.

    Walz retired before his unit received deployment orders so it wasn’t like he was evading a deployment. Walz was a sergeant major when he retired but upon retirement was downgraded to a master sergeant because he hadn’t completed all the sergeant major courses required within 3 years of his promotion.

    So Republicans are saying he “stole valor” by claiming to retire as a sergeant major but to anyone whose been in the military (like me) this is really nothing like stolen valor…He did serve as a sergeant major and retire while a sergeant major but he is NOT a retired sergeant major. A distinction that’s obviously a bit confusing and normally nobody would care.






  • Descriptive linguists unite! Words evolve and that’s okay. Really science should pivot away and start calling more proven theories a different word if they’re upset about the confusion.

    The etymology of the word theory comes from a word with a meaning closer to “to look at or speculate” so even in that sense science kind of hijacked a word that was further from the modern scientific understanding of the word “theory” and descriptively transformed it themselves for use in their community. And that’s okay too.




  • He’s trying to claim that companies colluded to stop advertising on X and that violates antitrust laws.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_boycott

    But it’s strange because this refusal to advertise on twitter doesn’t really harm competition in anyway. Concerted refusal to deal is supposed to be like when 3 big bad companies want to hurt a smaller competitive company so they get together and boycott any suppliers that deal with this competitor or force them to get a worse deal.

    The companies GARM (Global Alliance for Responsible Media) represents are big enough (90% of advertising $) but they aren’t really competitors to twitter. If say facebook and tiktok got together and told GARM they wouldn’t run any of their ads unless they stopped working with twitter that would be much more in the spirit of the law.

    But Twitter might still have a tiny bit of a case if they can prove they met GARM’s standards but were still excluded anyway. I doubt that’s enough for any major payouts though unless the judge is crazy. And honestly I think it’s still dumb because even if GARM settles it just tells advertisers “Okay you can advertise on twitter if you want they meet our standards”…but are advertisers really going to want to advertise on the site that just sued them?

    Also I don’t even think GARM prohibits members from advertising with companies it doesn’t recommend and just offers suggestions, which makes this case even more insane if that’s true. In that situation it’s like the health inspector gives a restaurant a “D” and the restaurant sues customers for not eating there anymore.