This week, our winners on the insightful side are a pair of responses to the fearmongering CS professor who insisted that California’s protect-the-kids code is nothing to worry about. In first place, it’s an anonymous comment about misleading claims regarding Instagram and body image issues in teen girls:
Why do those worried about body image issues ignore the fashion and advertising industries, both of which push the ‘perfect’ look?
In second place, it’s That One Guy replying with one simple answer to that question:
Because that would undermine the whole ‘all these problems are because of tech companies and nothing else!‘ narrative.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got two more comments from that post. First, it’s another anonymous comment, this time pointing out the problems with the claim that website operators were meaningfully consulted about the bill:
Of course, you realize that even if they consulted 999 website owners, they wouldn’t even have reached as high as “rounding error” status.
On the other hand, if they consulted, say, the 150 highest profile websites (enough that they could claim ‘hundreds’), they would have missed entire industries and genres, let alone economic brackets.
Next, it’s That Anonymous Coward with a comment about the whole situation:
That thing where Faux News did to our parents what they thought video games would do to us.
Over on the funny side, both winners come in response to our post about the court dumping Trump’s lawsuit claiming Hillary Clinton rigged the 2016 election. Our first place winner is Rico R. with a response to the attempt to salvage certain particular claims:
It’s not RICO. It’s never RICO. And of all people, I should know! My name is Rico, and I never claimed to know or like this sore winner of a President!
In second place, it’s an anonymous summary of how bizarre the entire thing is since Trump, y’know, won:
When you win so hard you have to frame others for your win…
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Norahc about Adobe’s insane estimate of Netflix’s losses due to password sharing:
9 billion? Is Adobe applying their prices to Netflix to calculate costs?
Finally, it’s an anonymous response to Elon Musk attempting to claim that Mudge’s firing should get him out of the Twitter deal:
You might forgive Musk for thinking this severance was not in the normal course of business. To him, a seperation involves a firing, spies and lawyers sent after terminated individuals, Twitter tirades against said individuals, and probably lawsuits filed.
You can see where he might be confused.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon