They work great for me on desktop Chrome with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus enabled, and they work great for me on ipad and iphone Safari with no adblocking enabled.
Yes, Jimmy Hoffa is a "famous" disappeared person case here in America.
There are only a few "famous mysteries" that became such widespread memes in American culture.
The ones I can think of are:
1. What happened to Jimmy Hoffa (who killed him?). "The Irishman" on Netflix is a Scorsese adaptation of a "nonfiction" book that documents an old Mafia hitman claiming to have killed Hoffa. (The book is nonfiction, the guy's claims are somewhat contested.)
2. What happened to Amelia Earhart? (Early female aviator who disappeared attempting to fly around the world).
3. What happened to and who was DB Cooper? (A man hijacked an airplane, traded some hostages for a duffle bag of cash at an airport when such a thing was possible, told the pilots to fly to Canada and then jumped out of the plane with a parachute and the duffle bag somewhere over the pacific northwest).
It is a shitty thing to do, but there is nothing particularly special about the fact that it is a grave, or that there is a particular person involved.
Society suffers, because people do not wish to be subjected to the sight and smells associated with urination.
A cemetery is usually something of a public park, of sorts. Urinating on a random grave is around the same order of shittiness as urinating on any part of a public park meant to be appreciated or contemplated by people.
If the grave of the random person matters a lot to you, ask yourself, would it matter if the headstone were not there? Would it matter if you did not know there was a grave there?
Every time you urinate on the ground, you are urinating on the remains of millions of people.
With every breath you take, you are inhaling the remains of everyone who has ever been cremated longer ago than it took for their burn gases to homogeneously mix in into the atmosphere (which really does not take very long).
> If is a shitty thing to publish it against the author's will when they are alive, it is equally shitty to do it when they have died.
It's definitely not _equally_ shitty. It's arguable whether it's shitty at all. For an action to be a shitty thing to do, someone must suffer as a result.
I can see a couple of ways to argue that the author's beneficiaries might suffer, and perhaps even that the author themself might suffer depending on your religious beliefs.
But surely it's not anywhere close to _equally_ shitty.
I am firmly on the side of releasing everything. Great works of art are so incredibly valuable (to the culture) that the chance of finding one that might have been missed trumps these other concerns.
GP mentioned that most of Kafka's best works would have been destroyed if his stated wishes were honored (it is debatable whether these were his actual wishes).
A web search turns up that Monet destroyed a lot of his works before he passed.
How many Aeneid's are we 'missing' because the author was successful in destroying their unfinished work?
It's definitely Art, in that it is making a statement, provoking a response, etc.
But, it's just a nearly continuous sound, except for the pitch change every few years.
It's a Sound, but it's not Music.
If you were to argue that it is Music, I would ask, "Which part of the piece is your favorite? Why do you prefer it to the other parts?" Trying to answer these questions with a straight face becomes difficult.
If this is Music, then is it possible to make an art installation which has making Sound as its primary focus, and have it not be Music?
It's not a question about difficulty, it's that nobody really gives a shit.
I'm sure everyone on this site knows that it would not be difficult at all to implement this.
Perhaps there is some valid legal concern over remembering minors' data, but if so, you can pretty easily come up with another dozen examples of sites elsewhere having similar issues with non-sensitive data.
The problem is that you usually have to have someone who is actually passionate about the product to drive all these little things home. Maybe this was a bug that was the next item on their backlog, but then someone in the chain of command said "it's good enough now, ship it.", and then everyone got moved on to the next thing.
Almost everyone at most companies, at all levels, is just doing a job. Very few people actually care about the product.
Add the toggle. When a Rio de Janeiro customer clicks the toggle to request doorstep delivery, pop up an error dialog saying that doorstep delivery is not available in this area for driver safety.
With this setup:
The feature exists if the company wants to support it in certain areas.
It is not supported in RdJ and other dangerous areas.
> What about 20 years? What about 1 year? Those are all irreversible.
You are using linguistic tricks to make a bad argument.
The fact that the past is immutable doesn’t mean that things can’t be reversed.
If you’re planning your day in the morning and you decide you’re going to have chicken tonight, you can never change the fact that you decided that you’re going to have chicken, but you can choose to not have chicken.
One way to stop yourself from making these sorts of bad linguistic arguments is to ask yourself, “does my argument mean that a word has essentially no use or meaning?”
That applies here, because your argument basically makes “irreversible” a nearly useless word.
Any time your argument is effectively making an adjective tautological, there is a problem. Because otherwise, why does the word exist?
> but there's a continuum all the way to death sentence. Are you also against life in prison?
And now you have moved to making a like kind argument that the death penalty is essentially the same as a slap on the wrist, since the past is immutable.
Here is another opportunity for a sanity check on your argument.
When the state has executed someone, that person can never be apologized to.
That person can never receive any sort of restitution.
That person went to their death, very often in extreme physical agony. (Both electric chair and lethal injection have horrific failure rates on this. Firing squad, hanging, and guillotine are all much more humane).
That person dies while a roomful of people who hate them watch through a pane of glass, sometimes cheering.
They die, knowing that most people think of them as an awful person undeserving of pity, sympathy, or love.
“””It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.”””
To make an argument that this is essentially the same as any other punishment, even life in prison, is really kind of gross.
When someone is arguing from a position of strength, they don't need to resort to petty jibes.
You are already arguing from a position of strength.
When you add petty jibes, it weakens your perceived position, because it suggests that you think you need them, rather than relying solely on your argument.
(As a corollary, you should never use petty jibes. When you feel like you need to, shore up your argument instead.)
Also, note that all of the negative examples are politics related. If a politician reads the word 'ilk', it is going to be interpreted negatively. It might be the case that ilk does "always mean" a negative connotation in politics.
You could change 'ilk' to 'friends', and keep the same meaning with very little negative connotation. There is still a slight negative connotation here, in the political arena, but it's a very vague shade, and I like it here.
"Altman and his ilk try to claim that..." is a negative phrase because "ilk" is negative, but also because "try to claim" is invalidating and dismissive. So this has elements or notes of an emotional attack, rather than a purely rational argument. If someone is already leaning towards Altman's side, then this will feel like an attack and like you are the enemy.
"Altman claims that..." removes all connotation and sticks to just the facts.