If I could do things over again, on today's internet, I like to believe Weird Gloop is the type of organisation we would have built rather than ending up inside Fandom's machine. I guess that's all to say: thank you Weird Gloop for achieving what we couldn't (and sorry to all who have suffered Fandom when reading about Minecraft over the years).

[1] That's a bit of a cop out, we did have options, the decision to sell was mostly driven by me being a dumb kid. In hindsight, we could have achieved independent sustainability, it was just far beyond what my tiny little mind could imagine.

Their blog post about reviving the project: https://jkulton.com/2022/reviving-httpstatuses

https://hackernews.hypertext.town/camps :)

1. click "Set up camp in www" 2. make an account 3. choose your camp name 3. add your html / images etc.

edit: visit https://hackernews.hypertext.town (by TeMPOraL)

For comparison Taylor Swift's album Reputation did ~500,000,000 streams in the first few weeks after it launched, granted that was available on all services and not just Tidal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42564917

I'm a little suspicious of the numbers, given Taylor Swift has a wider appeal than Kanye and her album was on all services but you could sign up for Tidal for free and the article is clearly wrong when it says "a claim that would have meant every subscriber played the album an average of eight times per day" so I'm inclined to say Tidal are telling the truth because if they did inflate the numbers then they would not have needed to inflate them from, say, 25 million to 250 million which is what the report seems to suggest.

[1] See the BBC Taylor Swift article for an example of how the figures are calculated

The point of Tether is that for each USDT there is a corresponding USD in an account belonging to Tether. If Tether were printing USDT to keep 1 USDT valued at 1 USD then they would be violating what Tether is publicly stated to be.

The whitepaper can be found here: https://tether.to/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TetherWhitePape...

    Due to network congestion and manual processing, 
    we have closed ticket payments using 
    Cryptocurrencies — Hopefully, next year there 
    will be more unity in the community about scaling 
    and global adoption becomes reality. 

    We have, and always will, accept cryptocurrencies 
    for our conferences, up to fourteen days before the 
    event. However, due to the manual inputting of data 
    in our ticketing platforms when paid in cryptocurrencies, 
    we decided to shut down bitcoin payments for last minute 
    sales due to print deadlines.

This is a longer article on the subject of poorer health outcomes for minorities, covering the situation for black women and one family's experience, which is very much worth reading, but here are the key points:

Statistics:

* A black woman is 22% more likely to die from heart disease than a white woman

* ...71 percent more likely to perish from cervical cancer

* ...243 percent more likely to die from pregnancy- or childbirth-related causes

Reasons:

* Black women are more likely to be uninsured outside of pregnancy, when Medicaid kicks in, and thus more likely to start prenatal care later and to lose coverage in the postpartum period.

* The hospitals where they give birth are often the products of historical segregation, lower in quality than those where white mothers deliver, with significantly higher rates of life-threatening complications.

* [Black women] are more likely to have chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension that make having a baby more dangerous.

* Black expectant and new mothers frequently told us that doctors and nurses didn’t take their pain seriously [...] numerous studies that show pain is often undertreated in black patients for conditions from appendicitis to cancer.

* An expanding field of research shows that the stress of being a black woman in American society can take a significant physical toll during pregnancy and childbirth.

* Black women are 49 percent more likely than whites to deliver prematurely (and, closely related, black infants are twice as likely as white babies to die before their first birthday).

You can see this information on the WeWork Plans page (https://www.wework.com/plans), and you can see events listed after 5pm at the WeWork Irvine location, demonstrating it is not an outlier and is definitely open after 5pm.

"Their balance sheet is appalling, and I have no idea who would loan this company the money to purchase the land, as it goes against almost every underwriting principle. The company brought in $378k in revenue last year and had an operating loss of $1.8 million."

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6rjpji/marijuana_comp...

"They have about 14.5B shares currently issued, and are authorized to issue a total of 25B."

Dairy cows spend more than half a decade being repeatedly raped and abused until they're slaughtered because their bodies have been destroyed by the milking process, and they spend that half a decade having their young snatched away from them over and over again. If having the emotional intelligence to mourn your stolen young isn't enough to justify ending the inhumane treatment then it's certainly not intelligence that humans care about.

If this research is unethical then learn about gestation crates, which immobilise pigs for months of their pregnancy.

The exception to this rule are "generic" ccTLDs, Google has a number of generic ccTLDs, these are ccTLDs that they will treat as if they're not ccTLDs. This includes .io, .me and .tv[1].

I used to run a site from httpstatus.es, last year I switched the site from .es (Spain) to generic (.com) and have seen a significant increase in search engine traffic. Here is a 3 year traffic chart, red box is the switch from .es to .com: http://i.imgur.com/60RXFjP.png

I am confident from my own experience that there is a big penalty associated with using a non-generic ccTLD and businesses should be very careful when choosing a ccTLD if search engine traffic is meaningful to their business.

[1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/62399?hl=en (scroll down to "More about domain determination")

The case I sat on had a piece of evidence that could not be admitted initially because of a legal technicality, the defendant made a mistake during his testimony and much to the defence's chagrin he revealed something that allowed the prosecution to present the evidence which otherwise would never have been heard by the jury. An article written about the case I sat on would have mentioned that piece of evidence -- even if it hadn't been delivered in court, it was public knowledge -- and a person reading that article would know more than I might have known had the defendant not made that mistake. The evidence heard by a jury is not more true or more meaningful than evidence heard by those outside of the process, it is evidence that fits within the legal parameters, evidence that the lawyers determine furthers their cause, it's evidence that has a material impact on the legal outcome.

The information available to the public about a case before a trial has taken place can be more informative than the information available to the jury during the trial, there are many cases where jurors have been contacted after a high profile trial to talk about the case and revealed the decisions they made would have been very different had they seen information now available to the public. Some cases may never make it to court, victims of sexual assault are often told that their case won't be pursued because the prosecution doesn't believe they have a strong chance of winning, does this mean that the victims and people knowledgable about the cases should never be permitted to air their opinions, the opinions they built on the evidence, because it never made it to court? That doesn't seem reasonable, to suggest that the gate keeper of whether or not an opinion is allowed is an opaque unsupervised legal process.

Every day individuals make decisions about people based on the information available to them and nobody bats an eye. When I witness caring and compassionate behaviour I choose to pursue friendship, when I see disrespectful behaviour I choose to minimise interactions, this is normal human behaviour that we all engage in every day, in personal and professional contexts. When people I trust inform me that someone behaves inappropriately, I choose to minimise interactions with that person, this is normal, it's accepted, everybody does it, so why does this suddenly become inappropriate to engage in this normal behaviour when the person is involved in sexual assault? Why are we suddenly worried about slander and libel and letting the legal system run its course when someone is accused of rape but the same isn't applied to claims about being inconsiderate, or theft. A credible claim is made about a party guest stealing jewellery, they aren't invited to parties any more, a credible claim is made about sexual assault, "whoa whoa whoa, let's not start a lynch mob here, let's leave it to the legal process".

The legal system exists to deal with law not personal opinion, it doesn't exist to determine how individuals can or should feel.

I have sat as a member of the jury on a case in which a man was accused of sexually abusing a child many, many times. I sat in that jury, I listened to the evidence and I determined beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. He is a rapist. As a member of the jury, that is my determination, I stand by that decision to this day.

I was unfortunate enough to sit on a jury with a majority of jurors that made the determination that he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and unfortunately that caused a mistrial, and unfortunately the prosecution decided not to pursue a retrial. The accused, the rapist, walked free from court.

Your argument is that I cannot stand by my determination, that I must sit here and tell you that he is not a rapist, that he did not abuse that child again and again and again, because I was unfortunate enough to sit in a room with people who don't understand sexual abuse.

People walk free from court, either by way of a mistrial or because the jury deliver a not guilty verdict, all the time, and these results are frequently delivered not because the person is innocent but because of errors made by the jury, the prosecution or by the police. Some people don't even make it to court because prosecutors can make decisions that aren't aligned with justice or fairness but with their own self interest.

As a private citizen you have every right to use your knowledge and understanding of a case to make a determination about the accused and you have every right to let that determination influence your actions. I will never allow the man I judged to be a rapist go near my children.

    It is morally impossible to remain neutral in this conflict. 
    The bystander is forced to take sides.

    It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. 
    All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. 
    He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear and speak 
    no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander 
    to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, 
    engagement and remembering...

edit: I would also like to add that courts do not deal in proof, they deal in evidence. A guilty verdict delivered if Jacob Applebaum faces criminal charges does not prove he is guilty of what he has been accused, a not guilty verdict delivered if Jacob Applebaum faces criminal charges does not he is innocent of what he has been accused. The justice system does not deal in absolutes, it doesn't deal in proof.