mathamaniac

[mathamaniac]

[mathamaniac]

📷 Haim Mizrachy

Red fox drinking at hot night. Negev desert, Israel

[mathamaniac]

DJ Compatibilism wants everyone in the club to put their hands in the air, under the assumption that them doing so would be a consequence of their own free will even if it was an inevitable consequence of previous states, as long as it nevertheless was appropriately a reflection of their own desires.

[mathamaniac]

The Dream City (1919) by Thomas Moran

[mathamaniac]

The Pantheon, the Morning after the Fire (1792) by J.M.W. Turner

[mathamaniac]

Guys, it got so much freaking worse. KOSA is bad, but SCREEN is even worse, somehow.

"Sen. Mike Lee has introduced the SCREEN ACT, a bill that applies the "harmful to minors" standard used to ban LGBTQ+ books and resources in schools and libraries and apply it nationally to the internet.

Any site that has any amount of material "harmful to minors" would be forced to employ surveillance tech (biometric scans, ID uploads, background checks) to prevent minors from accessing "pornography."

You will not be surprised to learn that this is backed by the Heritage Foundation.

Unlike some of the state age-verification laws, many of which are being challenged in court, SC will be enforced by the FTC, which has the ability to levy fines, raid business and freeze bank accounts. Yes, meaning that even non-for-profits like Ao3 will suffer.

This is something for all US users to keep on their radar. Call your reps, call your senators, and spread the word to protect our archive!"

- When talking with Republicans play up the fact that this would force Elon to implement age verification systems on X (yes do call it X during the call). Elon's been threatening to primary Republicans who stand in his way so there's fear of him. Also play up concerns about "Liberals" doxxing people or Chinese hackers.

- When talking with Democrats, play up the connections to Project 2025 and suggest voters will not be happy to see Democrats siding with it.

Republicans:

Ted Cruz, Texas (Chairman) - Phone: (202) 224-5922

John Thune, South Dakota - Phone: (202) 224-2321

Roger Wicker, Mississippi - Phone: (202) 224-6253

Deb Fischer, Nebraska - Phone: (202) 224-6551

Jerry Moran, Kansas - Phone: (202) 224-6521

Dan Sullivan, Alaska - Phone: (202) 224-3004

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee - Phone: (202) 224-3344

Todd Young, Indiana - Phone: (202) 224-5623

Ted Budd, North Carolina - (202) 224-3154

Eric Schmitt, Missouri - (202) 224-5721

John Curtis, Utah - Phone: (202) 224-5251

Bernie Moreno, Ohio - Phone: 202-224-2315

Tim Sheehy, Montana - Phone: (202) 224-2644

Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia - Phone: (202) 224-6472

Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming - Phone: (202) 224-3424

Democrats:

Maria Cantwell, Washington (Ranking Member) - Phone: (202) 224-3441

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota - Phone: (202) 224-3244

Brian Schatz, Hawaii - Phone: (202) 224-3934

Ed Markey, Massachusetts - Phone: (202) 224-2742

Gary Peters, Michigan - Phone: (202) 224-6221

Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin - Phone: (202) 224-5653

Tammy Duckworth, Illinois - Phone: (202) 224-2854

Jacky Rosen, Nevada - Phone: (202) 224-6244

Ben Ray Luján, New Mexico - Phone: (202) 224-6621

John Hickenlooper, Colorado - Phone: (202) 224-5941

John Fetterman, Pennsylvania - Phone: (202) 224-4254

Andy Kim, New Jersey - Phone: (202) 224-4744

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware - Phone: (202) 224-2441

SCRIPT

Hi, my name is [], and I am one of Senator []’s constituents. I live in [city, zip code - leave your full address if leaving a voicemail].

I am calling in regards to a bill that was recently introduced in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transport: the SCREEN act.

I am asking Senator [] to either take no action or vote against this bill because of its implications for freedom of speech. [insert one of the other concerns listed above]. Thank you for your time and for listening to my concerns.

[mathamaniac]

cats exchange an egyptian kiss | via asaakuras

[mathamaniac]

Another rainy day by モモ

[mathamaniac]

Pay attention to the particular's Mastercard's responses, because this a textbook example of how to create plausible deniability.

"Mastercard has not barred any legal transaction" is, technically, a true statement – because Mastercard is not the one processing the transactions in the first place. Mastercard does not deal directly with any merchant, and in fact typically refuses to communicate with merchants at all; there's always a payment processing service sitting in between Mastercard and the merchant, whether that's Stripe or Paypal or any of dozens of other service providers.

Consequently, there are two layers of service agreements in place: the agreement between Mastercard and the payment processing service, and the agreement between the payment processing service and the merchant. That second layer of service agreements, between the payment processing service and the merchant, is where all of these content restrictions are being imposed. Mastercard can thus truthfully claim that they aren't barring legal transactions.

Now, if you've been paying attention, you've probably already spotted the issue: if the content restrictions are being imposed upon the merchants by individual payment processing services and not by Mastercard, why do all of those payment processing services seem to have exactly the same content restrictions?

That's where the critical sleight of hand comes in: while Mastercard's own terms of service do not require payment processing services to bar transactions of particular types, their ToS does require payment processors to bar transactions which could be damaging to the Mastercard brand. What constitutes damage to the Mastercard brand is not defined; it means whatever Mastercard wants it to mean. The payment processing services are thus in a position where they can be held in breach of Mastercard's terms of service for basically any reason, which gives them a strong incentive not to test any boundaries.

And that's why Mastercard can truthfully say they have never barred any legal transaction: they're never the ones doing the blocking. The layer of payment processing services that sits between Mastercard and the merchants are enforcing those content restrictions, based on a series of unwritten handshake agreements between the payment processors and Mastercard regarding what does and does not constitute acceptable content – and because the particulars of those handshake agreements aren't in writing, Mastercard can assert that their terms of service do not compel payment processing services to bar any legal transaction and technically be telling the truth.

[mathamaniac]

[mathamaniac]

the show must go on

[mathamaniac]

Elric of Melnibone Limited Edition Portfolio by Two Man Horse (1977, Dark Eagle). Art by Bob Gould.

[mathamaniac]

Notre Dame de Paris (c. 1890) - Robert William Vonnoh

[mathamaniac]

A view from Algiers (1889) by Peder Mørk Mønsted

[mathamaniac]

God if Suvi dies in the next ep.......I genuinely am afraid they will fight to the death now! Like Suvi Just found out her mom did that to Steel and she wouldn't do that for no reason and I dont think shes in a spot to wheel and deal her way free! So theyll fight! And Suvi will die, either physically or she will be so controlled she might as well be dead, and I will need to take off work to grieve. I love Suvi so much she was just starting to escape!! She wanted one good thing before leaving........but she cant have a good day :( no looney tunes for her :(

[mathamaniac]

On the Heights (c.1909) by Charles Courtney Curran

[mathamaniac]

(somewhat related to my "did we actually solve this problem?" post)

Reading Bret Deveraux (particularly the "Bread, how did they make it" and "The life of the peasant" series) really makes it impossible to take seriously the current trend of fantasizing about "bringing back deep community" or whatever, because these posts make very plain that when we had "deep community", it did not— not at all— emerge from a different set of values which have now been lost. It was entirely individuals acting in rational self-interest against a backdrop of "random crop failures can happen at any time, and they will kill you if you don't make hedging against them your highest priority, higher even than getting the best return on good years."

The closest you can get to having this behavior back is "literally be a cult that forcibly suppresses exit rights, like the Mormons do", and accept the consequences of that. If you're not prepared to go that far, I don't think the "deep community" the Twitterati wants is possible post-Industrial Revolution.

This could be a whitepill or a blackpill, depending on your perspective.