Brazil simply does not have any leverage in the matter. The country almost conducted the first test in Serra do Cachimbo, but the hole where the nuke was to be detoneted was closed by the former president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serra_do_Cachimbo
2) You listen and read and try to understand the meaning with the help of translations and the definitions in context of the words in the sentence. (You can click each word to get a definition in context)
3) Over time you mark words as known
That's basically it. You learn with context using content you are interested in. I'm working on adding a SRS to the app and a feature to improve your pronunciation using the language shadowing technique.
And as mentioned, building native iOS and Android apps.
I'm not sure how this contributes to the thread. This isn't a technical support forum, so it might not be the best place to discuss specific browser issues.
I've been using Firefox on Ubuntu since 18.04 was first released (about 6 years ago), and while I've encountered some issues, I haven't experienced the problem you're describing.
Of course, browser performance can be affected by many factors in your system. If you're seeking help, you might have better luck in a dedicated support forum or the official Firefox support channels.
Brazilian here. I find it very bad when someone from another country criticizes our Supreme Court, especially when it seems driven by ideological motivations. As others have pointed out, similar situations occur in other countries without bring Elon's comments
Brazil doesn't have an equivalent to the U.S. First Amendment, and that's not necessarily a problem. Our legal framework reflects our historical and cultural context. Why he feel the need to impose his vision of what's best for Brazil, without fully taking account our legal and social nuances?
> Brazil doesn't have an equivalent to the U.S. First Amendment, and that's not necessarily a problem.
That's an interesting perspective. The way I read our first amendment, it seems that the rights granted therein are a prerequisite for a free society.
If Brazil's leaders are unwilling to allow a speech platform go uncensored, why not ban X? Should X have to comply with every country's censorship requests? Elon alleged that Moraes requested private user information as well. Should X hand over any and all user data that governments ask for?
I'm being critical of laws that allow governments to censor and invade privacy of their citizens. "If it's legal then it's okay" is a non-existent standard. By the same logic one would support stoning homosexuals to death in Iran (it's done legally!).
Additionally, do you think I'm in favor of the Patriot Act? Does its existence invalidate any belief I hold that privacy is important? Being subject to unjust laws motivates my beliefs, not undermines them.
Some of the orders were not just to prevent people in Brazil from viewing certain things, but to take down content and ban users globally. The court also wanted Twitter to provide personal information of overseas accounts.
The UN declaration of human rights speaks to free expression being fundamental to human flourishing. As an American, I'm not terribly inclined to accept cultural relativism when it comes to censorship. Governments banning political speech they dislike is always and everywhere tyrannical.
I don't think it's comments they dislike. I think it's accounts spreading fake news and feeding a narrative of 'current government bad' to impose what they think is the right way. I mean, there are limits, and they're being imposed by the force of law
It doesn't work that way. Any ability to ban "fake news" immediately becomes a vehicle for banning inconvenient news. It's part of human nature. I don't have to list the dozens recent examples of "fake" news turning out to be true. There's a reason that Orwell's censorship body was called the "ministry of truth".
Governments shouldn't touch censorship for the same reason alcoholics shouldn't touch booze.
“Free speech” has limits. Spreading lies about people with the purpose of undermining someone’s reputation is defamation, which is a crime in the US.
In Brazil, it happens that lying about the democratic process with the intent of getting people to not vote or to get people to support your fascist coup is also a crime.
The Supreme Court ordered X to ban people who commit these crimes and subpoenaed it to reveal their identities so they can be arrested. Subpoenas happen all the time in the US.
Complying isn’t the problem here though. Twitter complies with similar requests all the time. The problem is that Twitter is failing to comply in time and is being hit with ever-increasing fines for it.
Musk could hire more people to deal with it or pay the fines, but he decided that firing everyone and leaving the country would be cheaper.
Plenty of Germans are fine with banning public praise of Nazis. You are free to spew the boring old pablum, but most people in the world aren't absolutist like you.
Besides, "political speech" isn't as easy to nail down as you seem to think it is. Child porn is political speech if I want it to be so you're opposed to banning child porn. Good to know.
So what you mean is that the nationality of a person makes it better or worse for them to criticize Brazil’s Supreme Court? It does not matter.
If people are driven by different ideologies, well this is just how it is.
I’m not saying Musk is right, but I want him to be able to criticize freely “our Supreme Court”, and also for him to be able to do with his business as he wishes. His vision might as well be for the best according to himself, who can decide if something is good or bad?
It's crazy to see the repercussions of the talk he gave at Stanford, even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel. I thought the talk was great. I remember in the talk he said something like this, but he was being really open about what normally happens in these types of companies. I think the problem is that he, as someone in a position of power, was too open about it?
> even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel
Stanford is an ... interesting place, it seems. I read that if you filtered for Stanford in the Forbes 30 Under 30 lists, they were most notable for having been accused/charged/convicted of stealing/scamming more money than their companies have generated revenue, to a ratio of nearly 3:1.
I don't know exactly why, but I suspect it's because of the repercussions that started popping up in the news just after the release. The talk was given 1 month prior to the publication of the video, so it was already a little outdated
Of course, I thought that my comment didn't touch on the critical part about it. I just liked the talk he gave. Should I also criticize when saying 'It's great' so I can express myself in a perfectly balanced way between justice and what people think he said badly? I'm asking an honest question
that is a phrase often used by people who are appealing to an invisible sense of "us versus them", emphasizing that the crazy thing-person-event is "not us" ?
> even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel
private conversations among the very powerful is exactly the topic.. so this seems a bit of a Freudian slip
> I thought the talk was great.
I am one of "us" so why so much upset from "them" ? Can we get some social mutual-assurance that "them" are so wrong, and "us" is OK (and continue to be wealthy) ?
> he was being really open about what normally happens in these types of companies
normal ! this is normal ! why are "them" so upset when this is obviously normal, right ?!
> I think the problem is that he, as someone in a position of power, was too open about it?
clearly we need to keep up the secret conversations among the wealthy and powerful ?
Sorry, mate. I'm really not immersed in the English-speaking world, so I don't exactly understand the use of 'crazy'. I just see this word being used and used it here. What I meant was that I think what he said was perfectly normal C-level talk, and that's it. I hope my words don't resonate badly
Really, I was just commenting something completely honest about what I thought.
The problem is exactly that it is "perfectly normal C-Level talk". It's a bit like having all of your legislators discussing acceptable combat attrition rates as balanced against territory annexation all-the-time.
If the most novel innovation your leaders can come up with is "lets do something illegal/immoral/unethical until we become TBTF/TBTBHTA(Too Big To Be Held To Account)", it's a sign you really have a leadership problem, period.
thank you for the reply and no bad feelings.. it is a vigorous and current topic.. lots of implications socially and technically.. Please note that individual artists and writers literally depend on legal sale of their works to live in any city. Those executives, investors and lawyers in the audience at Stanford with large capital assets are making decisions that change the markets in a real ways. Students (like you and me?) are in the middle and learning.. may this exchange contribute to that!
