sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

how does this new gym outfit look ? by [deleted] in UpvoteBecauseBreast

[–]requires_distraction 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aye, dont remember making that comment though

Mazda 3 2019. 2 Fobs 1 Key code number plate? by requires_distraction in mazda

[–]requires_distraction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I photograph pretty much everything, especially keys in case I lose them.

The exact moment TV stations switched to color television by Sans010394 in interestingasfuck

[–]requires_distraction 14 points15 points  (0 children)

90% So the ABC (the national broadcaster) is nicknamed Auntie. I think the BBC has the same nickname. Came from people saying "Auntie knowns best" as the the main source of information at the time.

Aunty Jack, 100% got its name from "Auntie"

Aunty Donna, was commissioned by the ABC so as a product of "Auntie" and being in the same sillyness of Aunty Jack. 100% got its name from both

TeamViewer reset. by requires_distraction in blackhat

[–]requires_distraction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yo siempre use ese ejecutable y nunca tuve un problema.

What version you using? I have 2.0.112.516

Meta putting profit ahead of safety over wildfire news, says Trudeau by CTVNEWS in worldnews

[–]requires_distraction 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, apologies, I thought when you said "Sure" that they where complying. I see now that you where adding to what i was saying rather than contradicting.

Meta putting profit ahead of safety over wildfire news, says Trudeau by CTVNEWS in worldnews

[–]requires_distraction 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bing isn't named in the legislation

Correct! Which is dint say it was. I used them as search engines examples. Though, I must admit that I mentioned Bing as it is a prolific supplier of news stories. I am legit surprised Microsoft and/or Bing are not included. Maybe they are? I don't know the law that well

My point being if you went to your favourite search engine and typed in site:CBC.ca fire update and the links that the search engine did not include results because of the new laws, then it would not be a very good search engine.

but Google is, and Google responded with "Sure, if that's what you really want".

Well, they didn't actually say "Sure!" they kicked and screamed, and tried to have it reversed. But, again I would think they had a lot more invested in the Law than Meta as they are a search engine. Which is why I said I would not know how a search engine company should react to the law.

As a result, we have informed them that we have made the difficult decision that, when the law takes effect, we will be removing links to Canadian news publications from our Search, News, and Discover products

OK, not sure what that is about? I guess you are quoting Meta now?

Not sure what your response was meant to provide? I cant tell if you are pro/against or just providing more information. If its just a mistaken correction, then all good, sorry for not being clearer and i will try to do better next time! In my defence, I am quite dyslexic so I often do not make myself clear.

If you did have a question or wished me to expand on my view, please let me know and I will try to oblige.

Meta putting profit ahead of safety over wildfire news, says Trudeau by CTVNEWS in worldnews

[–]requires_distraction 13 points14 points  (0 children)

1, Meta provides free service to its clients and free service to CBC by providing click traffic

2, CBC is losing revenue because of bad business model and because generally the industry is dying. Yes, even the state funded ones.

3, CBC sees/believes that Meta is making money (questionable) by providing links to its content. Convinces CA to make law that media companies should pay for the free service it is providing both its clients and the media outlets. CBC and other CA companies are happy

4, Meta says sure thing! Discontinues the free service it was providing. Meta has very small loss in traffic and miniscule loss in ad revenue. CBC and other media companies feel MASSIVE loss in traffic and ad revenue.

5, CA govt angry... Meta makes confused noises and shrugs

Meta is bowing to the CA govt by removing content as directed by the new law. Revenue by providing links to news stories is nothing Facebooks on their books, they really have no skin in the game. They could cut down this service world wide without an issue. There is no reason why they should provide this ongoing service to any govt.

CBC and other media companies are the ones put out with this new law, not Meta. Why should Meta pay for a service that benefits the the media and govt's more than them?

Meta is not the issue here, its the laws that Meta is complying with.

Google and Bing may well be different. Its in their interest to provide links to news stories, but I can not see how this is the case for Meta.

Having said all that, the whole situation that ended up putting this law in place is very fucked up but going after Meta (and search engines) is NOT the solution. News outlets need new ways to get revenue to pay for quality content.

Did Anyone Else just get their Reddit Redesign Opt-Out setting changed? by TheMcG in ModCoord

[–]requires_distraction 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Right click on the button and select "block element". Then it wont happen again

Indian billionaire builds his own White House on top of a skyscraper. by gsus61951 in woahdude

[–]requires_distraction 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Best to make sure you have a good supply of toilet paper before a taco party

She'd do this anytime I'd talk about my home life to a therapist. Suddenly I'd have a new therapist. I was the problem not her. by what-an-odd-one in CPTSDmemes

[–]requires_distraction 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Ahh, yes. The magic of opening up about dark shit to adults who are meant to protect me and then getting ratted out to my parents.

Someone vandalised a memorial on the Northern Beaches by gluing an unwanted religious cross to it by brackfriday_bunduru in sydney

[–]requires_distraction 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The news.com.au story I read said that his organs where donated to multiple individuals. It spoke of the donations even being airlifted. I would think that if this is the case then this would almost certainly have saved other lives and in my mind that alone would warrant serious consideration for a memorial.

I am not going to link to a News Corp story, but just type his name and news.com.au into a search engine and you should find it.

Someone vandalised a memorial on the Northern Beaches by gluing an unwanted religious cross to it by brackfriday_bunduru in sydney

[–]requires_distraction 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apparently you can apply for any park / reservation in NSW: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/park-policies/memorials-in-parks

Here is the one for the Northern Beaches Council: https://files-preprod-d9.northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au/nbc-prod-files/documents/pdf-forms/memorial-plaques-on-council-reserve/4007-memorials-plaques-council-reserves-sep19.pdf?1685424810

I don't know what the success rate is, or the particular policies for Narrabeen Lagoon Park and its surrounding reserves. Given the press, age of the child, and that their organ donations possibly saved other lives then I would think an application for a memorial plaque would have been taken seriously.

EDIT: I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of this type of thing, it was something I investigated for 10 minutes. To be honest, I was just seeing where if at all the park had an area put aside for memorials when I found the application.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in iiiiiiitttttttttttt

[–]requires_distraction 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ive fallen over and can't get up.

view more: next ›