I like ownership and working class. That’s the real distinction seperateing us. People who work for money, and people who own things for money. Even 6 figure doctors and lawyers are working class.

I don’t think you really need AI for that.
You can manually curate a list of phrases, and create a score for how often/many appear in a given story.

After writing my comment, I thought of mass shooters tweaking their tactic, and going to different kinds of locations. Like certain board rooms.

While I mostly agree, 800% interest really is way beyond anything those others are doing, and more than worthy of being slapped for.

It’ll fade. Unless…

It happens every three months or so. With escalating difficulty. All they way to being found dead alone in their office. Then slow down to every 18 to 36 months. That’s when they’d be scared enough to actually change corporate policies.

Management changes don’t necessarily mean product changes. TikTok is killing it. No reason to risk screwing it up.

As much as people think the US social media companies manipulate their algorithms for political purposes, nobody has demonstrated it. They’re only geared to maximize engagement, and profit.

It’s not a semantic argument at all. It may be nuanced for some, but it is a vital, material difference.

First. You can’t know if it will substantially change under new management. That’s speculation

They aren’t banning ByteDance do to it being competition with domestic platforms. If that were the case the ban would be for TikTok directly. One example for it being a material difference.

Second. Yes. The fact that they are at least partly beyond our justice and regulatory system, is part of the reason for the ban. But it’s only a real concern because…

Third. They can and have already been shown to subtly manipulate the algorithm to artificially elevate China’s image.

It’s got absolutely nothing to do with China collecting data on Americans. As you said that’s laughable on the face of it.

Again. Not a TikTok ban law. A ByteDance ban law.
ByteDance could sell their stake, and TikTok would be just fine in the US.

Someone else gave a link, that basically described they really only need act as a witness to vows, then sign the form. They don’t even need to say anything. Since that’s all that’s required, I can’t see any reasonable cause for her to refuse in this case.

But the ceremony doesn’t even matter. Any speach at any event you disagree with, it should be your right to decline.

Agreed. As I originally stated if it was as simple as signing a bit of paperwork (which in this case seems to be all that required) there’s no excuse.

Agreed. But the performance of a ceremony shouldn’t be needed at all by the state.

And in this case it almost isn’t. She could have simply been a silent witness to vows, and signed the form.

Performing a ceremony is absolutely a creative work. One that shouldn’t be required for a state to accept a marriage to begin with. But that’s a separate issue.

If my friends thought I was a racist homophobe I doubt they would’ve had me officiate their wedding. That would’ve been weird.

It certainly is art. Surgeons can choose not to perform any surgery they don’t want to.

The I believe in this case she had no good excuse not to act as a witness and sign the paperwork, since it seems that’s all thats required, and she has no responsibility to perform any actual ceremony.

I still believe no judge or person should be required to perform or create anything they don’t want to.

How does staying at a Holiday Inn Express make somone a surgeon?

I only repeated what was in the page you linked to.

That doesn’t mean she knows everything about the law. Any judge would be able to admit that. That’s why they have specialities like family court, or criminal court, copyrights, etc.

It might be in ignorance. But it’s certainly not in bad faith. I do actually believe everything I’ve said. Though some of that has turned out to be wrong.

I was a wedding photographer in New York, 13 years ago. So yah. Respect my authoritay!

There is no particular form or ceremony required except that the parties must state in the presence of an authorized public official or authorized member of the clergy and at least one other witness that each takes the other as his or her spouse.

So it seems the judge doesn’t actually need to do anything more than be a witness. Then she could have done simply that, without saying anything. I wonder if she even new that.

But that link says nothing about the required duties of judges. They are nearly in the list of approved people, able to perform marriages. Also strange it comes from the department of health.