They aren't referencing the 1951 movie, but instead the 1920s shorts series called Alice Comedies, the first of which is literally called Alice's Wonderland.
These weren't really retellings of the original stories, but it would nevertheless not be hard to imagine they would count as a derivative work under modern law and would thus have been illegal to produce without a licensing deal.
> So, I guess it wasn’t till after World War Two that their feature films became profitable. They survived, so chances are the shorts brought in money.
According to Wikipedia [0], "The U.S. and Canadian governments commissioned the studio to produce training and propaganda films. By 1942, 90 percent of its 550 employees were working on war-related films." So, it seems they primarily survived by taking government contracts, not producing shorts. In fact, the next paragraph goes on to say, "With limited staff and little operating capital during and after the war, Disney's feature films during much of the 1940s were 'package films', or collections of shorts, [...] which performed poorly at the box office." So I wouldn't say their shorts were particular moneymakers during that time. After the war, they started releasing feature films again (Song of the South, etc).
Although it does seem that in the 20s and early 30s, prior to Snow White, animated shorts and comics (and potentially related merchandising?) were most of the company's revenue.
So, I think it's probably fair to say shorts financed the company through the release of Snow White, but not really any further.
Actually, it uses port 8448 for federation [0], which is unlikely to conflict with other services. But, even if it does, there are ways to specify a different port or subdomain [1].
> As to your second point, we often hire underage people to do work such as restocking shelves. If sex work is truly the same as retail work would you also argue that hiring an underage prostitute is no different than when Walmart hires a 15 year old to push carts? If not, what's the difference?
I don't find this argument compelling. Are you saying that the only professions that are morally permissible are those that we would allow fifteen-year-olds to do? We don't allow them to bartend, drive trucks, nor be members of the US Senate, but I find it silly to think that fact makes those professions particularly immoral. 15 year olds aren't even allowed to work 40 hour weeks in most countries.
And, to answer your question, I think the answer is that the fifteen-year-old is not sexually nor emotionally mature enough to engage in prostitution. (Just like they are not mature enough to serve alcohol or drive, whereas they are likely emotionally mature enough to push carts.) They're below the legal age of consent by three years, for goodness' sake! Advocating for legalized and regulated prostitution is not equivalent to advocating for pedophilia, and I find the equivalence you've drawn troubling.
Well, the burden of proof is on you for saying that there are small trucks on the market. But, it turns out that the complaint about the Tacoma is spot on.
The Tacoma's weight has increased from the 3155 lbs. - 3877 lbs range when it was first released [0], to now being in the 4,425 lbs. – 4,480 lbs range [1]. In comparison, the 2020 Ford F-150 weighs in the range of 4,069 lbs – 4,653 lbs [2]. For fairness, a Ford F-150 from 1995, the first year that the Tacoma came out, weighed around 4,316 lbs [3]. So, they are in fact the same weight.
Similarly, the length of the Tacoma was 30-40 inches shorter when it was released [0][1]. Now, it is within the range of a modern F-150 [2].
In conclusion, the Tacoma has increased substantially in size since its introduction (the Wikipedia page mentions it was reclassified from a compact pickup to a midsize pickup), and is now on par with a Ford F-150 (both modern and the 1995 version) in terms of weight and length.
> Can you give examples of model years and decisions to back up your claim?
Actually, I think the burden of proof is on the GP who made the original claim that there are plenty of small trucks for those who want them. Additionally, it's easier for them —or you— to provide a single example of a common small truck than for the parent to provide a comprehensive breakdown of the sizes of all trucks over decades of model years. Plus, they have already pointed out the Tacoma, at least, as having grown.
> Last I checked this (common) misconception is patently false.
This is merely an assertion with no more evidence than the parent. To flip your question: Can you provide examples of small truck models to back up your claim?
I mean, probably, but the article is explicitly only looking at states with the death penalty:
> In the analyses below, we include only states allowing the death penalty in the year of analysis. Because we focus on the geographical variability in the use of the death penalty, we exclude the US military (which has sentenced 15 individuals to death since reestablishment in 1984, but carried out no executions) and the federal government (which has issued 79 death sentences since reinstatement in 1988, and carried out three executions).
And with this in mind, they still found that death sentences didn't correlate well with the homicide rate:
> The table also lists the rate of death sentences per 100 homicides and the rate of homicides per 100,000 population. If there was a direct link among these variables, we would expect some consistency here. But we see very little. In fact, the correlations are surprisingly low; in fact, the rate of death sentences per 100 homicides and the rate of homicides per 100,000 population correlate at -0.12. The counties with the highest raw numbers of death sentences listed in the table include not a single county that ranks in the top 100 with regards to death sentences per 100 homicides.
First, even the death penalty rate isn't approximately equal across the sample, so it's not just population. And second, they are saying that the death penalty rate doesn't even correlate well with the crime rate. And yet there are still a few outlier counties that have an abnormally high death penalty rate! That is what is unintuitive. I mean, sure, it makes some sense that some counties are more likely to issue the death penalty than others, even where it's legal, but it's a huge skew, and it's very different from saying "Texas has a lot of people."
I assume you mean to imply that population alone explains the title of the post? My guess is the argument goes:
(1) Crime scales with population.
(2) Death sentences scale with crime.
(3) Therefore, death sentences should scale with population.
(4) The U.S.'s geographic distribution results in very dense clustering such that only a handful of counties have a lot of population.
(5) Therefore, we would expect to see only a handful of counties account for the majority of death sentences.
However, this line from the abstract seems to make (2) unlikely:
> The number of death sentences in a given county in a given year is better predicted by that county’s previous experience in imposing death than by the number of homicides.
Thus, their argument is that something much deeper is going on than just population-level trends.
Actually, I recommend you check out Freenet [0], a project that's 20 years old. In fact, the Wikipedia page explicitly states:
> Information flow in Freenet is different from networks like eMule or BitTorrent; in Freenet:
> 1. A user wishing to share a file or update a freesite "inserts" the file "to the network"
> 2. After "insertion" is finished, the publishing node is free to shut down, because the file is stored in the network. It will remain available for other users whether or not the original publishing node is online. No single node is responsible for the content; instead, it is replicated to many different nodes.
> Realtime mass surveillance of every party who receives money is isomorphic to realtime mass surveillance of everyone.
I don't believe it is.
For instance, imagine a closed system of three people: Alice, Bob, and Carol. Initially we start off with seeding both Alice and Bob $100 via Taler. We can see that because it is public. Then, we see that Carol receives $5. That is also public. Who gave Carol the $5?
If surveillance of money received is isometric to full surveillance, you should be able to answer this question, but clearly there is insufficient information, so clearly they are not isometric. There may be special cases where sufficiently large transactions can only have come from a small pool of wealthy transactors, but I bet this would be essentially meaningless in practice, and is absolutely not the same as equating the system to full surveillance of every participant.
These weren't really retellings of the original stories, but it would nevertheless not be hard to imagine they would count as a derivative work under modern law and would thus have been illegal to produce without a licensing deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Comedies