My most enforced boundary is likely "if I clearly told you «no», do not insist". Insisting further won't just piss me off, but also decrease the likelihood that you'll get what you're asking for.
I will warn you, it does have a silly name, but that was the name that was decided upon.
Damn, I was almost going to suggest some stuff. (chippym.uk - chippy, UK, a rodent...)
Serious now. I'm glad that federation means that people aren't putting all their eggs into the same basket; sure, feddit.uk going MIA is a loss, but just imagine if it was a non-federated platform. Hopefully the old users will be able to build their new home in the new instance.
230 WORDS IS TOO LONG FOR AN ILLITERATE LIKE ME: It wasn’t against the law, it was just, “Wrong think”
I'm not surprised that you're a failure to distinguish between "this is not against the law" and "this abuses a loophole of the law".
but nowadays, it doesn’t take much ASSOOOMPTION for what is considered, ‘scary and offencive' [SIC - offensive]
What he said is mentioned in the very comment that you're replying to.
I also do not think
Wow, this is news for... nobody.
I also do not think an entirely different country can demand another one to obey its laws.
Brazil is not demanding Canada to obey Brazilian laws. Brazil is demanding Rumble to obey Brazilian laws if conducting businesses in Brazil, or cease operations in Brazil. Rumble did the later, as per news in the OP (that you likely didn't read either).
The internet and online services make this specially messy but it's the basic gist of it.
[NB: I don't expect the above to be able to parse a single sentence, I'm answering his shitpost for the sake of other users.]
For further info, so other posters know what's going on:
Currently the Brazilian civil code has a gap that allows you to promote Nazism as long as you don't use the swastika, nor "practice, induce or incite discrimination or prejudice based on race, [skin] colour, ethnicity, religion or national [SIC] origin"; refer to law 7716/1989 of the Civil Code article 20*.
And then there's "that fucking guy" who says that there should be a Nazi party in Brazil; he's called Bruno Auib, also known as Monark, some random podcaster. He did not violate the law in letter, but clearly did it in spirit. And later on the same guy went saying "the elections were rigged!" and something like this, so the Brazilian judiciary (Alexandre de Moraes) used the opportunity to demand social media platforms to get rid of his accounts, under the allegation of fake news*.
And now Rumble is all over the place trying to justify the non-removal of that guy. The platform is Canadian and the decision is from the Brazilian judiciary, and yet they're babbling about "muh Amurrcan values" and that "gavurrnmenrs urr bullying uz".
[I like the outcome of the judiciary decision. The way that it was done was a bit shitty, but better than nothing.]
*the links are in Portuguese but I can translate relevant excerpts if anyone so desires.
Since krellor answered the main question:
I feel like it would be useful to know exactly how much alcohol is in a can or a bottle.
- By volume: multiply ABV by the volume of the drink.
- By weight: do the maths above, and then multiply the result by 0.789 g/ml.
RL example: the beer in my fridge is 350ml, 4.7% ABV. Doing the maths this is roughly 16.5ml of alcohol, or 13.0g.
Summarizing the legal terms for a new job offer
Someone is going to get legally screwed.
I'd trust an LLM more than my own interpretation.
HN: where people are proud to announce that they're illiterate.
...seriously, I get that legalese is hard to parse, but if you do it worse than a LLM you are illiterate, you are unable to retrieve information from written text.
I’m not sure it’s so black and white. // Reading yourself (at whatever level you are capable of and can tolerate) followed by asking an LLM to highlight any areas of the terms that are non-standard, may cause concern, could be restrictive, or might cost you later could help identify subtleties you might have missed. // Certainly it’d seem no worse and possibly better than just reading the terms, especially as a layperson.
This guy gets it. Sadly I don't think that the guy using LLMs to summarise legal terms for a job offer is doing this.
Elon Musk: too OOC, confusing VTM with Twilight.
Ben Shapiro: no real weapons when RPing, you fucker.
My hypothesis: Lemmy has an older userbase, and in general older people feel less of a need to express their emotions. They're busier discussing the topic than highlighting their attitude towards it.
Perhaps cultural reinforcement plays a role, too. As emoticons and emojis are less used, they feel more out of place, so people who'd use them elsewhere avoid them here.
Pay 10 gold to the local priest. Problem solved.
Not enough gold? Sell some old items that I've been hoarding.
No hoarded items? Then how the hell was I cursed on first place, if not by trying every piece of equipment in the way???
This text made me realise something: "defed or not defed" discussions are ultimately rushed.
Because at the end of the day, most Mastodon instances might defed Threads. Not due to Facebook's help in genocides or because they're a big corp, but simply because admins will say "screw it, 90% of rule violations come from Threads users, I'm not dealing with this shit."
The post is clear. That is what matters. If some assumer starts making shit up based on the title alone, the assumer is at fault, not the poster.