Did you actually own it though, per their TOS? What title was granted, if so? Also, and no offense intended truly, I think your having a grand total of 2 followers after 19 years was apart of their risk calculus in this seizure.
Twitter's official position is that accounts/usernames are not assets of their users (this isn't an Elon-era argument, from what I understand). I found this out when they argued in Alex Jones' bankruptcy hearings that his account should not be repossessed/auctioned off, an argument Alex supported since that's where he's been moving his audience over to to keep the cash rolling in no matter what happens.
No, but one should definitely do it for those services where one is investing their time and resources into in a significant manner such that any disruption would be painful.
These responses strike me as unserious and flippant. You’d never accept these responses if it happened to you with something you care about.
Also, comparing a TOS to a formal contract by two parties is a bit disingenuous. A classic “yes it’s technically true” situation. TOS’s are not treated the same way as a signed and dated formal contract. Not even by companies putting them up. They are lower stakes and often pages and pages of legalese that you also skip over at times.
> Also, and no offense intended truly, I think your having a grand total of 2 followers after 19 years was apart of their risk calculus in this seizure.
My account was hijacked via domain/DNS takeover around the time it was acquired by fElon (due to both Crazy Domains and Twitter support's incompetence — both parties removed 2FA from my accounts, even despite me telling Crazy Domains specifically never to do so). I managed to recover both accounts after kicking up a fuss, but the hijacker was midway through an 3rd party account wiping script, and I'd lost all my followers because of that.
I had 33,300+ tweets in 2015, and a lot of that was private interaction with friends.
"It's a big club and you ain't in it". Obviously the problem is the club is too small, that's why for most of the people it is true that they are not part of it.
"Half the population is stupider than how stupid the average person is". As if somehow there's not a single person exactly on the median. In fact there is probably a huge number of people there, and within a margin of error of it.
How do you figure? I don't have a problem with Carlin, but with people who quote him as a source of wisdom.
The commenter who quoted him here in the thread meant to make a joke and I didn't get it? I thought he quoted him as a point against the law we are discussing.
> "Selling is legal, and fucking is legal; but selling fucking is not legal."
I don't get it. The literal interpretation is a clear joke, as you say. So what's the point that it is making?
To be clear, I think the law discussed is stupid. I also think the argument that if both parts are legal they should also be legal together is wrong. What am I avoiding?
I am quite acquainted with Carlin. If there's anyone that can have their absurd logic repeated back to them, it would be a comedian. And That Right Soon.
Why should anything be done? This is what America voted for.
We get another vote in November. Americans can express whether they think this was a good idea or not. If they aren't overwhelmingly opposed to it, then democracy has spoken.
At that point it will be up to the rest of the world to decide what to do about a nation that has, and will continue to, invade other countries, apparently unprovoked.
The rule of law should apply to everyone, if government officials are breaking the law and being protected by the executive branch that's a sign of deep disfunction in your system
I can't give my ethical status as a human over to what the masses of folks in the US think is okay. It's kind of a disgusting proposition.
Like, you who are in the thuick of it, you who have given your voice over to empire, you expect the rest of the world to do something about the horrors done in your name just because... what?
The assholes you live around "voted" to do something evil, lesser or greater?
And now you're doing evil, too? And it is, somehow, "up to the rest of the world?"
That's bleak and you really should think if "democracy" (or it's pale ghost that haunts US politics) is doing anything useful for your status as an ethical human.
It's entirely possible that you indeed do have such a boot on your neck that you really can't resist the power of empire in its core, but for [insert your preferred diety here]'s sake, you don't have to roll your soft belly over and take the kicks.
Yeah. I vote for the lesser evil. My ethical status is less important to me than trying to make the world a better place, even if imperfectly.
I believe that my ethical status would be in more jeopardy right now if I could have prevented a clearly criminal war, and chose not to. My actions, not the actions of others, determine my ethical state.
It does mean I face an ethical quandary now. Thus far I have upheld the social contract of democracy. I have not broken it in an attempt to end this war. That is an ethical stain on me, which I live with as best I can. It is my inaction, not the actions of the country, which stain me.
I will vote again when I can, and right now I'm going to hope that ends the war. That will not be sufficient, but one of my moral principles is "It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it".
If it suffices... then it suffices, and I will do my best with what happens after that. If it does not suffice, then I will be faced with an even worse moral quandary, and I hope I find the strength to do whatever seems right in that dire circumstance.
I recommend Jon Stewart's podcast with Heather Cox Richardson from this week. They talk about the ceding and concentration of power, and how we the people can take ours back. Not something that can happen in a midterm or maybe even the next ten years. But at least we are talking about it more and their words will help us articulate things better to our neighbors.
PageAgent doesn't have the strong page understanding - semantic tree representation of the pages - it's just a flat DOM basic stripping of HTML - which makes it hard to navigate shadow DOMs, even same origin iframes for that matter or diff frameworks. And also they do element marking - CUA style not sure if they use it in the actual calls to Qwen. And yeah, as arjun takes 30 steps to even do a basic task of find some info.
What we strengthened building agents working on 2M+ web workflows in the past 4 months - is our representation of pages that seamlessly helps agents go through any page old to new iframes, shadow-DOMs and more. Best part of Rover if you as website owner enable cross-origin reqs, say Doordash has Rover and a merchant be like get my restaurant menu from my website and update in Doordash. Rover agent determines the 3P website need, launches our cloud browser to securely execute 3P site actions gets the menu and updates the merchant menu on Doordash so your users never have to leave your site to do a task - one of a kind enabling cross-site interactions
Also PageAgent's DOM based understanding is pretty simple and based on top of Browser-Use's approach.
On the other hand we construct our own custom Agent Accessibility Trees to represent webpages to models. This approach leads to twice as good performance in WebBench of 300+ tasks (81% vs 40%)
reply