What? The parent article is a SpaceX mission post. Meanwhile I note you have contributed 2 posts in this topic and both of them are about Trump. Do you have any thoughts on the actual event that took place? Or is your needle stuck in Trump's groove?
But Crew 10 had also been planned for a while, so the narrative that Trump ordered a new ship to go up "NOW" can't be true. For example, heres a post about NASA moving the launch date to March, in December last year: https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/commercialcrew/2024/12/17/nasa-ad...
This is definitely true. The only questions are: a) could they have gone back home on the retrofitted seats on Crew 8 or b) could there had been a Crew 10 sooner to allow them to go home on Crew 9 sooner. I don't really know what's up with those questions.
As evidenced by this situation it's not true that any criminal can give money to any politician and expect favours. Perhaps some criminals curry more favour, and perhaps some politicians are more transactional.
12 Pool means build your spawning pool at 12 supply, usually the number before the building is at which supply you build the building, and it assumes you're constantly producing workers.
lol. Shareholders won’t care if Apple pulls out of Europe if Europe makes it impossible to make a profit.
Another comment claims that the App Store represents something like 40% of Apple’s profit. If you chop a company’s profit in half and lay on a bunch of regulatory costs, pulling out of the market starts to look appealing.
And, who is to say that the EC will stop here? What happens when all the alternative app stores fail because they fail to enforce the same developer-hostile, user-friendly features as Apple (like request to track). You think the EC will just roll over and let that happen? Or will they take even stronger measures?
Continuing the humor the EC is just throwing good money after bad at this point. Shareholders can see that just as well as anyone else.
Apple has reported to the EU that Apple's EU App Store revenue is 7% of their global revenue, a far cry from 40% of their profits. Don't believe what some rando posted here and then base your entire comment on that belief or be prepared to be wrong much of the time, and in embarrassing ways.
Apple can't even afford to lose that though or Cook would face a board and shareholder revolt.
And what if the EC doesn't stop there, well, most of us are hoping they won't an that Apple will be paying billions in fines until they cut the malicious compliance song and dance and get serious about respecting the EU's competition laws. Apple cannot leave and will not leave and so they will ultimately do what ever the EC demands of them. It's just a matter of how much they pay in fines first.
It's both, the methods by which the election is made secure and accurate should be understandable by most people. Most people don't understand cryptography and cybersecurity.
Derren Brown (and surely quite a few others) love pointing out that this is an industry where you tell your audience you are going to lie to them, then lie to them.
It's entertainment.
Uri was flat out lying, and refused to break character, basically turning him into a charlatan.
That's the first time I've seen this word, yet it definitely distinguishes against real (Olympic) wrestling.
I never watched WWF, now WWE, because I couldn't see any use for rooting for any one of them, since the matches are far more about the super-human "stunts" than about anyone in particular winning. Given how manufactured the fights were, whoever the winner was, was a moot point anyway.
There is a similarity here for sure. Imagine if Hulk Hogan claimed all his moves were genuine hard core painful moves, and not carefully rehearsed to merely look painful.
You might find this video interesting: Why there will never ever be another show like Monday Night Raw [0].
I have no knowledge of wrestling except for vague cultural osmosis, but I found this video makes a very compelling case that it is a modern form of live theater, and regardless of its low-brow connotations should be understood and respected as such. Essentially: WWE is modern day Shakespeare, not a sport.
I also don't watch WWF for the same reason, that it obviously is completely fake. As a dramatic performance, it's terrible acting as well. It's worse than a daytime soap
But you could appreciate it as a skilled live stunt act. Because it is genuinely dangerous. The moves must have been rehearsed, but the performers do get seriously hurt if they don't execute the act precisely in front of the audience
In conjunction with the video from 'dkbrk below, I'd recommend "The Unreality of Pro Wrestling"[1] as an excellent introduction into the ongoing storylines, etc., that WWE has on top of the 'super-human "stunts"'. Certainly opened my eyes and definitely shows that the winner isn't a "moot point" but plotted and planned well in advance to keep the soap opera going (and indeed, that storyline continued right up to a couple of weeks ago when they did Money In The Bank in London.)
Is that so? Most magicians do not pretend their illusions are actual magic. How do other performers lie? Do you think an actor is lying while they act?
Of course actors are lying when they act. To study acting is to study how to effectively lie. Do you think Patrick Stewart is actually Jean-Luc Picard? Of course not because you know it’s an act, a lie, a ruse put out to entertain you. Therein lies the difference between a con artist, who is acting, and an actor. We accept the actor’s lies because they entertain us, but that doesn’t make them any less of a lie.
The same is true for a magician’s illusions. The act is a lie. They don’t tell you that when they pull your card from the deck, because that ruins the entertainment, but the saying “a magician never reveals their secrets” exists because we know they’re lying to us.
I think you’re kinda robbing the word “lie” of some of its subtlety. It implies disingenuousness. But the actor or magician doesn’t want nor need you to believe they are actually the character, or that they are actually performing magic. They just want you to enjoy the show.
Compare to a con artist, who relies on the audience believing the act. It’s that, IMO, that makes them liars.
But there are plenty of acceptable reasons to lie to people beyond acting and illusions. Say your friend is getting into painting and they ask you if you like their most recent work. Objectively it’s average but you tell them you love it. It’s a lie but its intent is to encourage them and maintain your friendship. In this case it would be “bad” to tell the truth, unless maybe you’re an artist yourself who can provide actionable feedback in a constructive way.
Your comment doesn’t seem to relate to what I’m saying.
I don’t make a value judgment about lying. I’m just saying lying implies deceit. In your hypothetical scenario there is deceit, so there is the lie. I don’t think most actors or magicians are deceitful.
This is an interesting tangent. I agree that advertisers lie, and that some actors that appear in advertisements speak lies.
But I don’t think Matt Damon was lying when he portrayed Jason Bourne; nobody was under the impression that Bourne is a real person. They even put “Matt Damon” on the screen at the beginning so nobody is confused.
“They” in this case includes Damon himself. It’s not some separate group of people protecting the audience from Damon’s deceit. If I say to you “I am acting as a character” and then proceed to do so, where is the lie?
Similarly, if I say to you “This is nonsense: Water does not exist” was I lying as I spoke the last four words? Context is kinda important I think.
A lie involves the intent to deceive someone who is entitled to expect the truth from you. It's not merely a question of whether a statement is on its face true or false.
This is important, because if we are to make a sweeping statement that lying is wrong, then we need to make sure we are clear on what is and what isn't a lie.
I say all sorts of outrageous things to my children, but I'm not lying to them because I don't expect them to believe me -- and they don't. In an analogous way, magic shows are not lying because the deceit is part of the premise. Telling a knock knock joke when you're not actually a banana (or whatever) is similarly not a lie.
I found that lying is no more intrinsically bad than truth telling is intrinsically good. Both truth and lies commonly enable terrible harms.
Like pretty much everything, it depends. Consideration is a much better policy than honesty.
> lying is bad, especially when done for profit.
This so often ends up in a bad place that I'll likely flag it as problematic - even before I have complete information. But that's because of reality & history, not an arbitrary rule.
To clarify, are you advocating for the use of white lies in situations where the truth would do greater harm? Or are you promoting lying to larger degrees?
> To clarify, are you advocating for the use of white lies in situations where the truth would do greater harm?
I'm not advocating for truth or lies but for outcomes. Based on this, I think trying to qualify lies is the wrong place to focus.
One reason I'll lie is to convey more useful information. Lets say I have a mild ailment that weird and not easily explained. It's impacting my productivity. People who are impacted need a brief explanation. They don't need a rabbit hole or an organ recital or a reason to lose their lunch. I'll lie. I'll say I have a different ailment, one that signals my limitations and closes the subject.
Other reasons I might lie. To avoid a situation where a truth will cause someone pointless pain. To avoid an immediate bad outcome for someone - that a truth would cause now but would work well later. The deciding factor in play in these two is consideration. Their well being is better served thru consideration than by a rigid rule.
> Or are you promoting lying to larger degrees?
I am promoting consideration for others over a rule that is rigid by it's nature.
Looking at the other side, I will sometimes tell the truth where it isn't well received. Q: Can you keep a secret? A:No.
Speculating, but Apple wanted to make sure that the only people photographed using the headset were models and actors who are very attractive. That way whenever a news outlet runs a story about it, they have to use the picture of the attractive/cool people using it, and people make an association that the headset makes people attractive/cool.
Telling journalists that their young colleague is allowed to have their picture taken but they cannot because they're too old and frumpy doesn't sound like a good way to get positive coverage for your product. Easier to forbid pictures of anybody using it than to make a policy of judging journalists by their physical appearance.
