nelly_man

At the national level, that's true. The candidates are usually quite distinct and very well known, so holding a particular endorsement is unlikely to change anything.

However, I do find them useful in local elections. In those, the candidates are usually (but not always) pretty closely aligned, so it's hard to make a decision based off of what their campaign is promising. They also frequently involve candidates that are fairly new to politics, so it can be difficult to learn more about their past outside of what their campaign puts forth. So I'll usually learn something worthwhile from an endorsement that can help me make a decision. I also have a good opinion of some of the local magazines that make me more willing to trust their recommendations.

It's not so much that as that the coalitions and eventual parties wanted to hold both seats, so they ran multiple candidates with the assumption that one would be president and the other vice president. The electors would then structure their votes to ensure that the correct person was elected to each position. However, with the difficulties in long-distance communication at the time, this was prone to error. In 1800, this almost led to the candidate for vice president being elected as president.

After that, they realized that it didn't make sense to use one slate of candidates for both positions, so they separated out the ballot into president and vice president. That's essentially how the elections had been running up to that point (particularly because they always had two votes to cast), but it was to easy to make a mistake. Both before and after the amendment, there was a presidential candidate with a running mate vying for the vice presidency.

He was a 19 year old man in the Netherlands talking to a 12 year old child in the United Kingdom on Facebook. He traveled to see her in the UK, got her drunk, raped her, and then attempted to get a hotel room with her. They couldn't, so they slept under a stairwell and he raped her twice the next day. She had told him at one point that he was hurting her, but that didn't stop him. After that, he flew back to the Netherlands and told her to go to a clinic for contraception.

So they were essentially strangers to each other with a significant age gap. I don't know what her exact intentions were when speaking with him, but she was 12. Even if she were thinking about sex, it would not have been with an understanding of what that actually meant. She wasn't just under age, she was well under the legal age of consent. There's a reason that children cannot legally consent to sex.

Also, he's never really shown any remorse for his actions. At best, he's said that it was the biggest mistake of his life, but his overall stance seems to be that he regrets getting caught rather than raping a child. He's much more angry at people calling him a pedophile than he is at himself for doing wrong. So your final points may be true, but they aren't really relevant to his case because it doesn't appear that he could be considered rehabilitated. He's merely completed a prison sentence which was made lighter by Dutch law not classifying his actions as rape at the time.

The ask that YouTube manage their system better. Currently, they assume that a copyright claim is valid unless proven otherwise, and it is difficult for content creators to actually get them to review a claim to determine if it is invalid. So, a lot of legitimate users that post videos without actually violating anybody's copyright end up being permanently punished for somebody illegitimate claim. What we want is for YouTube to, one, make it more difficult or consequential to file a bad claim, and two, make it easier to dispute a bad claim.

However, that's not going to happen because the YouTube itself is legally responsible for copyrighted material that is posted to their platform. Because of that, they are incentivised to assume a claim is valid lest they end up in court for violating somebody's legitimate copyright. Meaning that the current system entails a private company adjudicating legal questions where they are not an impartial actor in the dispute.

So your concern is legitimate, but it's ignoring the fact that we already are in a situation where a private company is prosecuting fraud. People want it to change so that it is more in favor of the content creators (or at least, in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty), but it would ultimately be better if they were not involved in it whatsoever. However, major copyright holders pushed for laws that put the onus on YouTube because it makes it easier for them, and it's unlikely for those laws to change anytime soon. That's what I'd say we should be pushing for, but it's also fair to say that the Content ID system is flawed and allows too much fraud to go unpunished.

You're talking about the court system. They are talking about Content ID. YouTube makes it easy to submit faulty copyright claims with little repercussions if they fail, so there are more fraudulent claims than you'd see in the actual court system. They want YouTube to penalize the abuse of their system more strongly so people that upload videos don't have to deal with so much shit.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it means to cut in a wasteful manner, particularly in terms of fabric. From elsewhere, it looks like it's also used in construction in regards to cutting material such that the remaining sections are not usable for other purposes.

However, I'm not sure how stale bread discourages such cuts.

I was more so responding in regards to the original posters comment regarding the lack of justification as distinguishing this act from murder. If the police officers were allowed to kill him under the law, it is not murder. Murder, by my sources (which show the English-language definition) as well as yours (which show the legal definition), is a legal term that applies to a subset of acts of homicide.

Murder is a specific kind of homicide which is defined as the "unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

• Merriam-Webster
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Dictionary.com

So you're saying that movies shouldn't push a message and should instead be purely about enjoyment. Then you bring up an example of a movie that you found to be really shitty and unenjoyable as an example of a movie without a message (but didn't watch enough of it to be able to say whether it pushes any message). Are there any movies that don't push a message that you did enjoy?

From the article, it's clear that their first resort was to call the police when he was banging and kicking on the door. The woman was on the phone with the police when he broke the window and attempted to open the door through the broken pane.

While the woman was on the phone with police, Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door "and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob," at which point the male resident fired the shot through the broken window, striking Donofrio in his upper body, police said.