This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Rekrul with a comment (which also racked up a lot of funny votes) on our post about the end of ownership and how big companies are trying to turn everyone into renters:
“Dear company, here is my payment. I hereby grant you a limited license to use said payment as you see fit for as long you provide the given product/service to me. I reserve the right to terminate your use of said payment at any time for any reason. In the event of such termination, you will immediately return said payment to me in full.”
In second place, it’s That One Guy with a comment on our post about the NYPD getting sued for illegal use of sealed arrest records:
‘Only we’re allowed to do that!’
Adding to the gross hypocrisy the NYPD objected, strongly and in court(to no avail thankfully) that releasing disciplinary records of police was a terrible thing that should be blocked because it might give people the ‘wrong’ impression of the goons they employ, so not only are they perfectly willing to violate the law when it benefits them they are downright eager to flip their own argument right around when someone tries to employ a little ‘transparency’ on them.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment from That One Guy, this time about the “apology” from the New Hampshire PD for “inappropriately” listing qualified immunity as a job perk in a recruitment ad:
‘We deeply apologize for our temporary honesty.’
Yeah, that’s not much better honestly as all he really seems to be saying is that it shouldn’t have been openly mentioned as a perk, not that QI is at all problematic itself(which it absolutely is). You do not openly advertise QI as a job perk unless that idea is widely accepted at the department in question, which doesn’t exactly speak well for that department and the ‘community support’ it claims to enjoy.
Next, it’s James Burkhardt with a good (despite some typos) comment about the latest example of an anti-piracy group seeking a takedown of 127.0.0.1:
Listing 127.0.0.1 as containing an infring should be expressly be a Prima facie admission that no good faith inquiry was made. Not evidence, its an admission of guilt that they did so little inquiry they didn’t even exclude their own “legally obtained material” used as refrence.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous letter to a certain politician:
Dear Representative Taylor Greene,
Recently, a colleague of mine sent a letter to Governor Spencer Cox asking that worthy to change his name based upon public pressure. This was quite the eye opener for me! Such a concept had never even occurred to me before. But now that I am aware of it, I have my own request to make.
Much like Utah, we the citizens of Georgia, and of the United States in general, do not want sick jokes running rampant in our civil institutions. Your initials have been popularized as “MTG”, which besmirches the reputation of a fine game that enjoys a – heretofore good – reputation worldwide.
Therefore, I hereby request you change your initials so they do not cause further confusion between the game’s fantasies of plane-traversing wizards battling each other with cosmic forces and those you have been espousing. Frankly, ma’am, your fantasies are of a much inferior and less believable quality.
In second place, it’s K’Tetch with a comment about the Louisiana and Alabama Attorneys General’s hotline for reporting social media censorship:
Ok, so who’s with me on filing complaints about Parler?
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a one-two punch on our post about the 127.0.0.1 takedown, starting with a comment from Bobvious:
Hey, that’s my home. Leave it alone. If Google delists it, I’ll never be able to sell it. That of course, and my noisy neighbours down the street at 192.168.0.1.
…and continuing with a reply from MightyMetricBatman:
Is the name of your neighbor Robert Router by any chance?
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon