ChemicalRascal

Many jurisdictions would treat that as facilitating copyright infringement.

Well, her being a cop is self-evident, but let's review the entire comment:

She's a racist, classist noeliberal and a fucking cop (or close enough).

Her political career has been chock-full of attacking public institutions like schools, protecting white-collar crime which destroyed countless lives, protecting child molesters in the church, implementing policy against the poor, and protecting prison slavery. I'm not sure where exactly the confusion lies.

I would argue that, frankly, her being a neoliberal should be explained, for the sake of discussion, but her being racist and classist should be. The details of her career being "chock-full" of various acts should be coupled with specific citations to reporting of those acts. And so on.

I don't like Harris, mind, but the comment being discussed could have established its evidence in a more convincing manner.

Sure. But still, why a tower? Even at their best, towers are just shelves that require more floorspace.

I fail to see what the pillar provides over just having a bunch of plants in a wire rack or shelves, beyond automating the act of watering -- which there are already better ways to do anyway, ones that don't involve having a bizarre, potentially-maintenance-heavy solution like what the pillar presents... or you could just water your plants by hand.

As such, this pillar feels like an entirely unnecessary thing. They've reinvented shelves, with watering. Loud shelves, because that contraption must make noise. They're not even good shelves. I'll just take regular shelves, thanks, and a watering can.

Having indefinite trademarks will mean we will eventually run out of names, as every name will eventually be taken over many years.

This, I think, is the core of the issue for you, correct?

That's not how trademarks work. There are plenty of authors out there with the same name as other authors (like, literal authors, not in the general sense of creators of works). There are plenty of companies that have the same name as other companies, be that essentially the same or actually the same.

This ticks off the Joe example. Atari is a brand, that brand is IP, so that's a separate issue. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say about Atari there, though I'm pretty sure if the Atari trademark disappeared immediately on Atari's collapse you'd just see another company start trading as Atari, which under your prescription would be legal, and the world would be functionally identical in relation to the Atari trademark.

As a software engineer, well, it would be remarkably difficult for my industry to pay its workers if copyright didn't exist.

Hold up. What purpose, exactly, does having trademarks expire on the death of the author have? What do we gain from that?

Trademarks? Why...? All trademarks do is ensure consumers know who made a given product.

If I make cola, even if it's the same as Coca-Cola, shouldn't consumers be able to differentiate between my cola and Coca-Cola's cola?

If the answer is "I am cis" or "I am trans", what is the question?

The question would, to be blunt, be "are you cis or trans?", because "cis" and "trans" are just shorthand for "cisgender" and "transgender".

It's a question of very limited scope -- even if you were to reword it -- because in modern society, the exact detail of if someone is cis or trans isn't really practically important. If someone is a man, say, society cares a lot more about them being a man rather than being a cisgender man or a transgender man. (I'd say the same about women, but there's obviously a subset of society that is in the process of demonising trans women, so...)

I think the core issue you've found is that cis/trans-ness is something that only makes sense in the context of something else, the gender identity of the person in question.

The glaring oversight in your opinion is that all NSFW posts are clearly marked as NSFW, and desktop reddit along with all the mobile apps have settings requiring you to opt-in to view NSFW posts with further settings to actually display the image previews or hide them (default).

But not all NSFW content is porn. And turning on NSFW visibility is not the same thing as being subscribed to a porn sub.

Your whole argument is disingenuous and borders on concern trolling or pearl clutching. Reddit is full of porn and other NSFW images, so don't act like they're suddenly showing hard-core porn to a bunch of kids or something.

Okay, let's change the scenario a bit then. Let's say I magically know you have NSFW content turned on, on your Reddit account. We've never conversed.

I then, unprompted, start sending you links to hardcore pornographic images, in your DMs. Once every half hour or so.

Is that something you think would be totally fine? Do you seriously think I wouldn't be violating a lack of consent on your part? You've turned on visibility of NSFW posts, after all, you must be fine with seeing it!

NTA. Your agent should have waited, or clarified, or even just communicated in any way, in order to continue inspecting the property. And even if it's such a huge problem that they missed one room, it's within their capacity as a functioning adult to come back another day to make sure the room isn't somehow in a terrible condition that isn't already reflected by the rest of the property.

But they're not the asshole either. Your housemate is, assuming they're stressing you out about this and making you worried that you're going to make him homeless. It sounds like his housing is a source of anxiety for him, but he shouldn't be putting that on you.

Opting in to NSFW content is not consenting to randomly have pornography thrown at you by a subreddit that wasn't a porn sub when you subscribed.

What the fuck, dude.

Majority of them did consent to the possibility of encountering such content. Thats the whole point of that check mark.

There's an enormous difference between "I'm okay with content considered NSFW, like descriptions of war and so on, being shown to me" and getting porn in your main page. That check box is not an "I consent to being shown porn" button.