I assume the person you're responding to is referring to the fact that Trump lost and ended up inciting an insurrection against the federal government in an attempt to prevent his opponent from taking power.
It's not failure. The guy went from being a joke target game show host to POTUS. If you ask the Democrats and establishment Republicans, he was the most important President in recent history (although they view this negatively.) The fallout from his election snowballed to the level that it's threatening a world war, and he's the obvious favorite for the next presidency. It's not failure.
It seems that there is a level of eternal embarrassment the media, doubters, etc have felt since when they failed to stop the Trump presidency in 2016.
They made sure that they covered and did anything they could to stop him getting re-elected in 2020 which after losing lead to Jan 6th. Even after the acquittal, he is yet again still talked about running once again and did not run into another war.
I would have expected the media, and editors to have ignored him by now, but the fact they are finding it difficult to do so tells us that they are taking his possiblity of re-election seriously such that they know he could do it again.
Not from your perspective or mine. But Trump retains a lot of power, controlling one of the two major parties, the leading news organization, a large movement, and plenty of assets.
> Users opt into notifications by first indicating interest through a user gesture — such as clicking a button. Then, they’ll be prompted to give permission for your site or app to send notifications. Users will be able to view and manage notifications in Notifications Center, and customize styles and turn notifications off per website in Notifications Settings.
Looks like there will be some interaction required to prompt it.
That being said, hoping there's a browser-level option to just turn it off.
Is that user flow described actually a requirement somehow, or is that just an "ideal scenario"? Cause right after that it says "If you’ve already implemented Web Push for your web app or website using industry best practices, it will automatically work in Safari" and existing implementations don't require a button press that they used in their example. Facebook just pops up the browser prompts to allow or block as soon as you visit the page, as do many news sites and other stuff I don't want notifications from.
Maybe the "using industry best practices" part is key, and they somehow will block implementations like Facebook.
This is already the case for the install prompt used by PWA. The browser uses an interaction heuristic to send an event that allows a PWA to show an install button.
I strongly disagree with the way people just throw up their hands and accept defeat. It is possible to have privacy on the Internet. Projects like Tor, I2P, and Nym are working to make this a reality. Fight back against the surveillance capitalist dystopia. Normalize privacy.
> Why do people always bring this up when people talk about "Facebook"?
Wasn't one of the points of their recent rebrand to Meta to better define "Facebook" as a singular product, and not the company and its other products?
Correct, but in this particular context, the top level comment used "Facebook" to refer to the collection of products under the "Facebook" (meta) umbrella. So saying "No young people use Facebook" implies that no one uses instagram, whatsapp, etc. in this context :P
I see this a lot in other threads pertaining to Meta/FB but its all semantics at the end of the day. And even if they are referring to "Facebook" the singular product being irrelevant, its not really informative since at the end of the day Facebook is a B2B company that sells data and serves targeted ads. It doesn't matter if they get that information to you through oculus, facebook.com, instagram, or whatsapp, and as of now, their "core" products (fb.com, instagram, whatsapp, messenger, oculus) still cover a huge market of people they can glean data from.
> * Bait and switch. Now replies to the original tweet will be out of context
I used to think this could be a problem too... but Reddit has had an edit button as long as I can remember, and bait and switch doesn't really seem to be much of a problem.
Perhaps it'd be more troublesome with the concept of retweets or quote tweets?
> I used to think this could be a problem too... but Reddit has had an edit button as long as I can remember, and bait and switch doesn't really seem to be much of a problem.
Anyone who does it enough to be irritating (instead of funny) will just find themselves banned by subreddit mods or otherwise they're doing it in a subreddit where it doesn't matter and no one will care.
The same community controls don't exist in twitter, so its plausible that it might be more damaging there. But so what? Many of the benefits are clear, the risks speculative. They could mitigate with a history button.
Wikipedia lets arbitrary users edit other users posts and gets by just fine-- not just the encyclopedia pages but the discussion pages too. Part of that is because it has a history so funny business is easily caught, but part of it is that if you give people more way to behaving unambiguously abusively if they intentionally chose to do so, some people will take you up on the offer and you can just remove them from the platform without regret. In that case everyone will be better off than if they didn't have the option to shoot themselves in the foot to begin with.
Check out FullStory. It's a drop-in Javascript snippet (aka accessible to any marketing/design folks) that records the DOM and rebuilds it as a playable video in their backend as if you were doing a screenshare and recording it.
I think the implication instead is you can't carry on sunscreen since it's a liquid, so you'd have to buy when you get there. But you're right, if you're checking a bag, you can bring all the sunscreen you feel like schlepping.
I'm still having trouble finding any sort of indication that there's a law on the books that prohibits travelers from bringing whatever sunscreen they want into the state via air (or boat, I suppose). Nothing on banning possession either. Do you have a source?
Best I can find is that Hawaii prohibits the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone or octinoxate, which took effect in 2021.
There's no enforcement, but bringing liquids through the TSA is a moderate pain in the ass, so it makes more sense to buy sunscreen at your destination.
> Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
Discussions on gender identity and sexual orientation are the only topics outlined as not allowed.
Actual sex education (whether it's the act itself, topics on puberty, etc.) seems to still be on the table.
Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure.
Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture.
If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's the case, then the State is doing them a favor, and it's not retaliation from Disney's perspective.
It is beneficial, just not from a financial aspect.
With Reedy Creek, Disney doesn't need to worry about whether local politicians will approve expansions or meet the needs of the Walt Disney World complex since the local government is purely serving Disney.
If you take a look at Disneyland in California, Disney is going up against Anaheim and Orange County councils on a pretty routine basis to get new things built.
They would be worse off in the same sense that a child who doesn't get to eat cookies for dinner is worse off: they didn't get a thing that they really wanted. And in the same way, a child isn't harmed by denying them cookies for dinner.
So, what's your opposition to the special district that provides Disney with the ability to maintain it's property is a manner that is consistent with their business needs--which surpass the normal requirements of either Orange or Osceola counties?
Sure it's a benefit to Disney, but it's also a benefit to the county taxpayers:
* Disney subsidizes both counties' services and infrastructure by paying property taxes to pay for services/infrastructure, but not consuming them, or contracting for them where needed.
* Allows counties to avoid costly legal and procedural issues when Disney wants to add new features, attractions, or services at their park, or wish to ensure consistency of services provided by the two different counties.
Yeah, I'm sure that not following the building codes in the state of Florida is financially beneficial to Disney.
> Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false.
It is absolutely true. Stop lying.
> The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
The district, in turn, provides services, including fire response, emergency medical services, water and sewage treatment, and can issue municipal bonds to finance infrastructure projects, which comes with tax advantages which are shared by no other corporation or individual in the nation. The arrangement gives Disney control over municipal services and autonomy when it comes to how the land is used and developed, exempting it from a number of regulations. Again, a privilege enjoyed exclusively by Disney Corp.
> > Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false.
> It is absolutely true. Stop lying.
Disney paid $780 million dollars in state and local taxes in FY 2021. Florida law does not allow an entity to be charged a different county property tax rate than other citizens. That's why, if the special district is dissolved, every property owner in Orange and Osceola will be facing a 20% property tax hike: the counties can't simply charge Disney a higher property tax rate to cover the costs of providing Disney infrastructure and services.
> which comes with tax advantages which are shared by no other corporation or individual in the nation.
You mean not shared by any of the 1844 other special districts in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire and water districts, law libraries, energy facilities, etc.?
Can you be more explicit about the tax advantages of municipal bonds compared to corporate bonds that you are referring to? You make an overly broad claim, here.
> Again, a privilege enjoyed exclusively by Disney Corp.
And, again, you are wrong. That privilege ("right", really, since it's enshrined in law), is afforded to a number of other entities in Florida (see above). And similar arrangements exist in many, if not most, other states.
That's not really ending on a good note.