Hendrix. Hendrix is the fosbury of music. Dude went off in his own direction in both technical and compositional terms, and a lot of people followed.
There’s solid points in the comments, but I feel like we’re talking about a single individual ignoring convention here, and there’s really only one answer in that context :)
The movie companies said they were not planning to go after these people in court
Worlds most prolific story tellers tellin stories;)
In case Apple’s advice doesn’t work, it’s safe to say that you probably need help from professional repair experts and may even need to prepare yourself to buy a new iPhone.
“Don’t do anything yourself, just come give us more money”
I’m reasonably certain that once enough governments jump on the “we need to control the internets” bandwagon, there will be a region specific convention adopted similar to country codes for phone numbers so that they can, in fact, apply customs to it…
I suspect it won’t be in the name of righteousness though, more likely it’ll be taxes, copyright, etc, on internet sales that trigger it.
options include the establishment of a digital ID system or services that can estimate an individual’s age based on a visual scan of their face.
Oh yeah… I’m sure that won’t cause any unintended issues at all…
Oh shit… My mother was actually a computer… There was a time when that was an actual job title in certain fields.
Gonna have to register my mom now…
“COMPUTER OR COMPUTER-DRIVEN MACHINE OR DEVICE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM A DIGITAL MODEL.”
I can print an origami pattern on my inkjet using my cell phone…
Ultimately, what I’m asking you is: why would I be opposed to a law that itself is 100% fine, just because the same legislators might later pass a different law that I don’t like?
Ultimately because the basic premise of the law could (in general) be the basis for the government to remove our entire conversation here…
It is potentially a tool to do this
In 1984, the government rewrites history and uses a multitude of techniques that trick you into accepting things that are not true as being true.
I don’t object for the sake of my my benefit, I object for the sake of yours (everyone).
I see it a one degree increment on the proverbial frog in the proverbial pot, being slowly but surely brought to boil and it’s death, and I don’t really care who it affects in the moment.
No, were just apparently on very different wavelengths here (I’m totally fine with this personally, no animosity intended at all, I like discourse and you don’t seem like you’re being a dick about it, so we’re on friendly terms here from my perspective)
Do you not think that government determination of what is or is not acceptable on “social media” (quotes because generalizing) is eerily similar to thoughtcrime? And an orwellian policy? Making a 1984 reference in its defense a little ironic?
I realize I discounted the bulk of your comment and all the “logical fallacy” buzz phrases you threw in, but I generally consider that pedantry and responding to it would bring in bad vibes on my side, so I skipped it, sorry. I can engage it, but I won’t have anything to say on it worth reading, it’ll just be old guy bullshit…
How you gonna reference 1984 while actively defending an orwellian policy?
Sounds an awful lot like sticking your head in the sand.
“Social media” is going to be whatever they decide they want government oversight on… Not being part of the introductory offer isnt a very good reason to accept it in my opinion.
They’ll come for your forum eventually…
Ok, well it was intended to be an opinion, so your assertion that I’m incorrect is incorrect because its my opinion, but that aside, which part?
I reiterate that question because if your opinion is in direct opposition to mine, it is, in my opinion, the one I would most like to hear. I’m a moderate/centrist/libertarian(non-party) and I’d unironically and unsarcastically love to hear your opinion on it. Unless you’re just being a pedant, then I’ll listen and I respect your right to posit any pedantic objections, but I won’t really care much :)
content that incites violence or hate speech from social media.
“They need to expeditiously remove content they are aware of if it is illegal.”
If a social media platform does not comply with the new EU law it can be sanctioned with a hefty fine
This essentially adds up to government proctorship of any “public forum” on the internet, including here… So if I randomly throw an “all lives matter” right here mid-comment, which while at face value is a ridiculously benign thing to say, can be and almost always is considered to be hate speech, lemmy is entirely obligated to immediately remove my comment or face heavy sanctions from the EU.
It’s an extreme caricature of an example that I assume won’t go anywhere, but the point is that it could, and the deciding factor on that isn’t anyone here, the deciding factor is a bunch of rando EU officials… If some Karen in Wales in the right position decides she doesn’t like my comment, she could initiate a “hefty” fine against lemmy admins.
It’s an absurd concept, and I don’t say that in the context of tuker Carlson (who I simply don’t give two shits about in any context), I say that in the context of us, as a “social media” community. We are subject to this proctorship, this censorship…
Wildly untenable concept in modern society…
I’m sure it would work great in a video game or something, but In the real world, this shit goes crony AF guaranteed.
We don’t measure aptitude or ability in our society, we absolutely suck at it. A person’s ability is measured by what pedigree they purchased at degrees R us, or worse, by how articulate and verbose they were when typing a resume. Occasionally, ability is measured by how well someone likes a person even…
Competence is valued in a very select few enterprises. Trades, IT, and at higher echelons, math nerds… That’s about it…
Are they going to pay for anything that ever inspired them? Every time you publish an article, you owe a dollar to every English teacher you ever had? Fill out your taxes and you owe your math teachers?
It’s fucking goofy…
Can’t read the article (acts like it’s paywalled but the paywall doesn’t even come up,maybe ad blocking is borking it), but let me guess… Every time a show gets big, someone splits it off into a new sub service, and people are getting sick of that shit and pulling the plug on the people they pulled the plug on cable for…
My kids hit me up for yet another subscription last week, because they wanted to watch a show. I was very close to cancelling everything instead, and teaching them some slightly sketchy skills, but I took the “high road” on it. They’re getting close to the age where that ain’t gonna happen anymore though :)
Consolidate yo shit media dudes. You got a finite limit on how many pieces of the pie can exist. When the slices get too small because you cut it into too many slices, nobody buys a slice anymore…
Yeah, it’s funny and nobody had mentioned it, so I did ;)
What is a security system supposed to do when provided with the correct login credentials?
I’m gonna go with not give that user access to millions of other users’ personal information…
I get your point and agree, but having a valid login shouldn’t provide that kind of access.
There were others who changed sports as well… Fosbury didn’t cause the Olympic committee to implement any bans, which is to say that others arguably attempted much larger changes…
He simply tried something way the hell off the beaten path and it caused people to think differently about how to go about doing their thing.
Jimi wasn’t even the only revolutionary influence in his time, you could argue chuck berry had more influence at the time, you could argue Charlie christian had more influence at sorta the same time, you could argue Zeppelin, Sabbath, the Beach boys…
Nobody came crashing into music from deep left field like Hendrix did though, just like nobody came into the Olympics from deep left field the way fosbury did (I’d argue for korbut, but nobody followed her lead due to pretty much everything she did getting banned).
I get what you mean and don’t disagree, but I did say I was speaking to a specific context ;)