I read Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind when I was younger. It suggested quantum processes as a last ditch effort for a non-deterministic brain. At the time, I thought it was a fascinating prediction of how our minds might work and that reading it made me a smarter person.
I have since come to view it more as an interesting lesson in the pitfalls of hypothesis formation, popular non-fiction, and vanity.
Even so, as a layperson, it's entirely understandable to perk up whenever someone discovers 'tubules' in the brain, even if none of that sufficiently supports any of the collapse requirements of the Penrose/Hammeroff quantum microtubes.
Or (and I hate how cynical I've become) "How can I justify buying an outrageously expensive custom-made suit?" Oh yeah, I'll write an article about it, ha ha.
On a less derisive note, a friend and I were riding the JR line in Tokyo when my friend pointed to the hand stitching on the suit of the salaryman (or not? ChatGPT tells me "yakuin" refers to the moire powerful decision-making company employees) standing next to us.
That was a cool thing about public transportation where even the high-flyers travel with gaijin tourists.
Simple exposure to culture, propaganda and points of view is child’s play compared to the modern strategy of inciting discord by amplifying existing differences and mass scale disinformation.
Don’t forget that part of the reason there’s a compartmentalization between Douyin and Tiktok is China’s own concerns about their nationals being exposed to outside influence in a manner far greater than what the US dictates the other way.
I really enjoyed TikTok and will miss it, but it’s hard to argue that it didn’t at least provide the potential for the CCP to more directly have an intentionally negative influence on western audiences.
You fundamentally misunderstand the rights American citizens have that are being violated. The government doesn't get to decide where it's citizens get their information from. We're supposed to be free to come to our own conclusions even if presented with propaganda and disinformation.
Once the government decides it has the right to curate what media it's citizens are exposed to you are living in a n authoritarian state.
I made no assertions as to whether or not this was an appropriate trade-off.
The issue at hand, however, is not about any particular media content being censored but about the manipulation of how that media is presented or suppressed by a foreign source. I think people should be given the freedom to choose what to view, but I am also not naive enough to think that we as a whole are not susceptible to influence, often without even being aware of how we are influenced.
To the end that the US has a national security interest here: We have other laws on foreign political influence like FARA and the Logan Act that have similar tradeoffs around free speech and free association, but these elicit much less controversy. There’s a fundamental question: should the ideals of free speech be allowed to undermine the framework that allows that free speech to exist? To some, saying yes to that question is like arguing the US Constitution is a death pact.
If the only place nearby to kick a ball around with friends is on an incline, turns to mud half the year, filled with dog droppings, pocked by holes in the ground, peppered with fire ants, lined with poison ivy behind the lopsided structures that stand in for goals, and you utterly hate it-- you might spend a lot of time there anyway.
AT&T was broken up based on location, hence the term Regional Bell Operating Companies.
I’m not sure how the relative straightforwardness of that approach maps to a company that basically has two main supply chains (737 in Renton and everything else in Everett with North Charleston as a satellite.)
Regarding the similarities between Hawaiian and Japanese: There are theories among linguists that there is a connection between Austronesian languages and Japanese. These theories don’t seem to be infeasible, but are currently lacking sufficient supporting evidence.
What's the difference between selling exclusively to a third party (against whom they don't enforce their trademark) who buys exclusively from them, and actually answering the headline with "yes"?
I understand there's a legal distinction, but there's so little practical difference that you'd be hard pressed to explain the distinction to a layperson.
Unless maybe you got hurt by a defective item and tried to sue Target for damages. I assume this scheme is intended to insulate Target from that possibility, their lawyers would argue that you'd have to sue Bullseye Deals, LLC which has negligible assets, not their multi-billion-dollar corporation..
> What's the difference between selling exclusively to a third party (against whom they don't enforce their trademark) who buys exclusively from them, and actually answering the headline with "yes"?
The article doesn't make any claims about exclusivity for target selling or this company buying. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I don't think the trademark claim is very strong either. Target's logo is a red circle surrounded by a white/transparent circle, surrounded by another red circle (bullseye). Their trademark application says "The mark consists of concentric circles representing a target or bullseye design." This seller's logo is a silhouette of white bull in a red circle.
There's some similar elements, but I don't think there's confusion. Target is affiliated with bullseyes, and uses bullseye in some of its trademarks, but the word bullseye by itself is not a trademark of Target.
You can buy Target return/overstock pallets at auction, and a deals account likely just resells that. Target doesn’t have to deal with it on an item level at that point.
Target does have some really restrictive rules on those pallets however that Bullseye deals doesn't seem to follow so they have either some form of an agreement in place where they don't have to or they're just a spinoff totally-not-target corp.
No they don't, I bought a box of Target returns from American Liquidations and I didn't have to agree to any rules, just bought the box. Target can't enforce any rules on me, as I have no relationship with Target whatsoever. The absolute worst thing Target can do is stop selling to American Liquidations.
It's exactly the same - they aren't buying directly from target, they are buying thorough Liquidity Services, Inc.
"Sources tell Modern Retail that all the listings are salvage merchandise from Target that’s been purchased by the reverse supply chain services company Liquidity Services, Inc."
Not really? I said they likely have a different agreement with Target. What I was saying is from my experience trying to buy pallets from Target. I linked to one of the requirement documents in another comment.
Target requires delabeling on most items in pallets that are Target branded and at least when I last looked they said no exporting. I went down the path of trying to apply to purchase pallets myself but opted against it even if a lot of other resellers ignore the rules. Not worth it - plus good chance of getting stuck with school supplies like reams of paper which you really can't do anything with when selling online.
I think “Nothing Gold Can Stay” fits the mold. It’s a heartbreaking poem of beautiful construction and depth that is dismissed because it has been heavily cited by popular culture. It doesn’t help that what it has to say, at first glance, appears to be cut short by its title:
Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Early versions of the poem show meandering sequential steps of revision that suddenly give way to a less intuitive flourish that anchors it.
I have since come to view it more as an interesting lesson in the pitfalls of hypothesis formation, popular non-fiction, and vanity.
Even so, as a layperson, it's entirely understandable to perk up whenever someone discovers 'tubules' in the brain, even if none of that sufficiently supports any of the collapse requirements of the Penrose/Hammeroff quantum microtubes.