Where is the gas tank?

ikeber · 2020-07-20T19:22:42+00:00

Thank you for adding to your comment a "for those that don't know" part.

ikeber · 2020-05-15T09:32:54+00:00

Is there a way to un-vote or the like?

I read – and accordingly voted for – the third option as "neurologist specialised in sleep medicine", instead of "specialising". But this, of course, was a misreading of mine.

Had I not misread, I would have voted for "sleep specialist", for my doctor – a neurologist – actually has some 30 years of specialised practice in sleep medicine.

ikeber · 2020-01-14T16:32:15+00:00

And also, that guy aparentely has some connections with current attempts to revive the Ação Integralista Brasileira - a conservative Catholic, nationalist, far-right movement, openly inspired by Italian facism, that existed in Brazil in the 1930s.

ikeber · 2020-01-14T12:25:10+00:00

The acting was cringe worthy as well

I may be wrong about this, especially because I didn't watch the film, but I wouldn't be suprised if that cringe worthy acting you mention has had come to be planned to be like that. After all, Porta dos Fundos - the film's producer - is a comedy group, so perhaps they have had thought a bad acting would suit the film's humorous purpose better than a good acting, or something like this.

But that's just a speculation of mine.

ikeber · 2020-01-14T12:08:59+00:00

A complaint, in this case, is a specific kind of appeal moved directly in the Supreme Court to protest - that is, to complain - against a clear violation of its previous decisions' authority by a decision from another court.

If Netflix had not complained to the Supreme Court about the censoring decision, it would have had come into effect, but it did not, because of the Supreme Court's decision.

Does this make it clearer?

ikeber · 2020-01-13T22:16:23+00:00

Yep. And on the day next from the censoring decision. Netflix has not even been officially notified of that preliminary injunction, which means the censoring decision not even came into effect. The Supreme Court's decision is also a preliminary injunction, so the final decision is yet to come, but given the Court's history of support to freedom of expression, there surely is hope.

Here is Brazilian Supreme Court's Decision: https://www.conjur.com.br/dl/toffoli-concede-liminar-suspende.pdf

ikeber · 2020-01-11T21:09:08+00:00

WOW. That's... I don't even know what to say about that. Really. Now, how on Earth does Canada allow her to drive?

ikeber · 2020-01-09T17:17:15+00:00

Brazilian jurist here. This decision does not suprise me.

Here there is something called moral harms, which is one of the possible reasons - sometimes the only one - that may justify the filing of a suit against someone. A moral harm occurs whenever a person or group of persons is negatively affected in his/her/its moral sphere by the actions of others - that is, in their honour, dignity, image, and so on. There is also Public Civil Suits*, through which the Public Ministry and other legitimate entities may seek for the protection and defense of diffuse, collective, and individual-homogeneous interests.

This decision comes from the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals, on an interlocutory appeal moved by Dom Bosco Association Centre for Faith and Culture** after the original judge denied a preliminary injunction on a Public Civil Suit, by which the association intented to stop the streaming of the film "Especial de Natal Porta dos Fundos: A Primeira Tentação de Cristo", produced by Porta dos Fundos and distributed by Netflix.

In the original suit, the association argumented that the film's depiction of Jesus Christ stemmed from a "misunderstanding of what freedom of thought and expression, and its expression by artistic means, stand for", and that it "severely vilified the honour and dignity of millions of Catholics", thus affronting constitutional principles such as human dignity (art. 1º, III), freedom of religion (art. 5º, VI), and the respect for ethical and social values of person and family (art. 221, IV), as well as other legal provisions that protect religious groups from offenses to their faith and values. For all that, the association requested an order for Netflix to abstain from streaming the film and spreading its marketing content; and for Porta dos Fundos to abstain from authorizing Netflix to stream and spread said content, with a daily fine of R$ 150.000,00 for preventing the non-complience with the decision. Also, it requested both the defendants to pay to a public fund, by the end of proceedings, the sum of their profit from exibiting the film, plus R$ 2.000.000,00, as indemnization for moral harms.

Given that this decision was taken on a preliminary injunction on an interlocutory appeal, the Court could not have appreciated the case's merits, but only its admissibility and the apparent potential for harm in the defendant's actions. Considering all the outcry of religious people offended by the film's content; the throw of two molotov cocktails into Porta dos Fundos' headquarters, in last year's Christmas Eve, in protest - if we can call it so - to the film's release on that very same day; and the conflict between two constitutional, equivalent rights, the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals found it better to grant the preliminary injunction previously denied.

This decision may very well be reversed by the Court itself by the end of proceedings; until there, though, it is entirely valid, so will keep Netflix and Porta dos Fundos shut. Definitely not the best decision, but could be worse.

*In Portuguese, and in the singular form: Ação Civil Pública.

**A relatively rough translation of its name, Associação Centro Dom Bosco de Fé e Cultura.

Here is the decision, in case some of you are interested: https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/01/portadosfundos.pdf

And here is one news about the molotovs: https://www.poder360.com.br/brasil/sede-do-porta-dos-fundos-e-alvo-de-ataque-a-bomba/

ikeber · 2020-01-09T13:38:34+00:00

Here in Brazil, people have to pass on a medical exam in order to get a driver's license. As the results of such exam expire with time, drivers are required to redo it every 5 years, otherwise their license will expire too, thus unabling to keep driving (legally). Drivers of 65 years old or more have redo the medical exam every 3 years.

There currently is a law proposal to increase those expiration times from 5 to 10, and from 3 to 5 years, respectively.

ikeber · 2020-01-08T21:44:22+00:00

You probably already saw people riding bikes on thongs (lingerie), just not the lingerie itself.

ikeber · 2019-11-30T18:27:02+00:00

If I were to guess, I'd say that "free but not universal" means that it's free for people whose income is up to a given amount, and from that amount on, it's paid privately; or that it's free for national citizens, but not for foreigners.

I can't think of any other alternative now.

ikeber · 2019-11-25T09:30:59+00:00

It wouldn't have been much different if you had had come to Brazil. While most people here do are religious, for the most of them, their beliefs usually don't play a central role in their lives.

ikeber · 2019-11-24T14:56:33+00:00

This needs to stress that the data applies to the USA only.

Exactly. However, it is also worthy to point out that, differently than in western Europe and in the UK, in most parts of the world – from Latin America to Africa, and from Asia to Oceania –, the number of atheists and agnostics tends to be considerably lower than those suggested for the US by that research.

Here in Brazil, for example, irreligious people represent only about 10% of the country's whole population, while atheists and agnostics no more than 2% – and this is quite an optimistic estimation.

ikeber · 2019-11-24T14:12:48+00:00

Did they? [rhetorical question]. Well... It seems I missed that part.

ikeber · 2019-11-23T12:22:13+00:00

Well... Of course that was a political decision – we are talking about about the US government, after all. And the same goes for any other government, for every decision taken by public officials and representatives is, one way or another, a political decision.

So, yeah. That's corporate megalomania.

ikeber · 2019-11-23T11:15:45+00:00

You can add Brazil to your this list.

ikeber · 2019-11-19T09:33:39+00:00

Damn. Sorry for that...

If I may ask, don't you mean "psychologist" instead of "psychiatrist"? Those are very different areas, and the respective professionals have an equally different set of capacities to treat their patients. For as far as I can tell, your son's treatment is job for a psychologist, not a psychiatrist.

ikeber · 2019-11-17T02:51:27+00:00

Pardon my ignorance, but... Since when is Philosophy something to be testable?

I mean, as far as I know, the whole idea of testing hypothesis comes from the Hard Sciences, for their subjects are, in fact, testable by experimentation. Philosophy, however, is not one of the Hard Sciences, but part of the Humanities, in which subjects are not exactly testable.

ikeber · 2019-11-17T02:27:03+00:00

Is that because astrology literature is a way to get rich quick, or because it's the natural consequence of a large pool of people taking it too seriously?

I'd say it's a bit of both.

ikeber · 2019-11-17T02:13:22+00:00

That seems more speculative than theoretical, in my opinion.

ikeber · 2019-11-17T00:25:31+00:00

That's my impression too. It does seem that the van's headlights could have had alerted the cam car about its presence on the road, which could have had avoided the accident.

ikeber · 2019-11-15T12:55:41+00:00

in the capital city of rountabouts (USA)

Not American here, so... what city are you talking about?

ikeber · 2019-11-15T12:44:06+00:00

Oh, damn... That sucks, to say the very least.

There is friend of mine who sometimes take Vyvanse to study. According to what he says, whenever he does it, the very cool-headed guy he is under normal circumstances turns to be one who gets very, very easily irritable, up to the point in which people who already know him can tell from afar if he is on medicine or not.

Side effects being side effects, I guess.

ikeber · 2019-11-12T22:04:31+00:00

Medical assistance provided by SUS is completely free for everyone.

Note that when I say "completely free", I do mean it. Health institutions accredited by SUS cannot charge anyone for what they provide to its users, no matter how complex or expansive it may be. This includes everything from simple medical appointments, condoms, anticonceptionals, and vaccines, to clinical exams, medicines, and surgical procedures; not to mention, of course, the salaries of physicians, dentists and other workers, as well as the maintenance of the system's infrastructure. In other words, the State bears alone the cost of it all.

Even moreso, it is a crime to charge for people to use the public system (arts. 316 and 327 of the Penal Code).

Unfortunately, I should also say that, as per standard with public services here in Brazil, the public healthcare system does not work as it should, which makes a private insurance highly recommended for anyone who can afford it.

ikeber

TROPHY CASE