This is entirely about removing Trump’s biggest weakness, which his impeachments.

This is a nihilistic strategy, identifying words that can harm and systematically destroying the meaning those words. Trump was rightfully impeached for cause, but if Biden can just as easily be impeached with no cause, an impeachment ceases to be an objective badge of shame.

Just like Trump didn’t originate “fake news.” It was a term used specifically to describe Trump’s lying, and Trump didn’t fight it, just destroyed its meaning.

They are literally removing our ability to communicate their wrongdoing.

I think we’ve heard the platform: punish enemies and dismantle democracy.

And for reference:

30% of the country actively want that after 3 decades of Fox News and AM radio, and 15% are too deluded to think it would never happen and are just sleepwalking towards it on party-line R votes. Which comes to ~45%.

On the other side we have 5-10% who don’t want it but are going to protest third party vote, or apathetically not turn out because they don’t feel Biden is close enough to perfect and can’t forgive him for being just good. Which comes to 45-50%.

Hope we have good turnout…

Reading Google’s release page, they’re calling it 1.0 but it barely looks ready for the platforms it’s available on, and there is a lot of weasel wording for features that are going to be rolling out into next year.

Just like Bard, they’re rushing things out to avoid a narrative that they’re slow.

Super easy: if you feel strongly enough, words don’t need to mean anything. There, all fixed!

MAAA, the sound of a primal scream of agony. Fitting.

It’s the classic “human interest” hook that probably works with most people. I didn’t mind it, but yeah, it was long. The old a-spoonful-of-anecdote-helps-the-statistic-go-down method, but very poorly measured.

“Sure, we all would love to indulge in the forbidden fruit of antisemitism, but hold on now, you can’t go and accuse someone of it unless they partake of that rarest of delicacies. I haven’t myself seen Musk quiver with that unique ecstasy we all only dream of, discussing openly and publicly the global Jewish replacement conspiracy, so can’t comment at the moment. And by raising that very question, taunting me with taboo but irresistible temptations like this, you continue to show why the liberal media is the enemy of us good, decent people.”

Yes, I should’ve taken a screenshot. Yikes.

I see you’re trying to govern the human race. Would you like help with that?

I’d never heard this before.

And then halfway through right on the lyric “kill them all and let God sort them out,” YouTube cut to an ad for a handgun. The irony…

News articles calling others “hardliners” compared to him is a good indication that just by making him speaker, the overton window has moved to the right.

lobut’s explainer video explains the contract law provision, but to be honest, it’s a deeply cynical use of contract law. The reason is that typically (and for nearly every piece of retail-sold property), you have property rights exactly like what everyone in this thread is intuiting. Those property rights absolutely would give you the right to resell.

Contract law trumps those rights, and Cena signed a contract. That is where the discussion keeps ending. But a court, if it’s circumspect enough, may continue the case long enough to examine how property and contract rights are in conflict. And it’s entirely possible property rights may win in the end.

Why? Because the contract may be invalid if it is “illusory.” An illusory contract is as it sounds based on a false presumption of exchanged value (“consideration”) or a false promise of performance from Tesla. Here, Tesla may be technically complying with contract consideration requirements by lumping the actual Cybertruck into the value exchange, which sounds right from a contract law perspective. However, if Tesla is not offering substantial value beyond what a typical retail sale would be, and if they are only offering the same ongoing services as typical retail customers, there is a small chance a court may decide that the contract is a pretext to in fact simply (and illegally) limiting property rights.

That said, I’d give it maybe a 5% chance of success. Contract law is one thing most judges will almost never interfere with. Which is why Tesla and others are doing it. They typically only do it with cars like high-end sports cars.

But importantly, it could become commonplace for anything you buy even at retail when combined with “clickwrap” agreements - i.e., agreements like in software that activate when you use or open the product. So it’s very very important that we continue to push back on this.