Related to this, there’s a Google translate button at the top that reads, in Turkish, “translate to Turkish”

Which could be evidence that the screenshot comes from somebody who speaks Turkish, which increases the chances that the person receiving the email is in Turkey.

That doesn’t answer your question, but it suggests that Bluesky may only be honoring requests regarding accounts they believe are subject to the local laws.

Two very important points:

• This is proof of nothing
• I personally will continue to use Mastodon instead of Bluesky

Well, you’re wrong. And this is the internet, and you’re not allowed to be wrong, so…

They’re supposed to be nice, calming letters but I always found these letters quite panic inducing which makes for a pleasant bit of irony.

“stuck on it” is an egregious hyperbole, they just gave it as an example.

For the asshole, I would have gone with Dawkins

Approving the post and then locking it before anyone could comment would be a hilarious and fitting way to answer the question!

That’s nepotism, totally different thing

/s

Not me!

I cry in the shower at night after work.

Here’s a direct link to the video https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD46f6UI46y/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.

Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.

But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.

Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less

Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.

anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid

That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.

Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.

I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.

In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.

I prefer the Ojibwe plural “moozag”

Some virus

Iirc the increase in pandemics has been an expected result of global warming.

For my money, there are three existential threats to the human species. You’ve already listed two: global warming and nuclear war. IMO the third is microplastics (although PFAS could be combined with microplastics to make a category I think we could reasonably call “forever chemicals”)

It’s not the employees’ fault, saying they should get no sympathy is a dick move.

That aside, I agree the TSA is a great example of the kind of spending that needs cut and the department dissolved.

Nice pun, I think you railed it

Number 5 is “are willing to accept any negative info about Trump as fact”

Saying “you voted for a rapist” does nothing because they refuse to believe he’s a rapist. They hand wave it away with conspiracies about witch hunts and the deep state.

You can’t shame somebody over something they don’t believe is true.

same way an LLM is able to produce coherent and convincing sentences by statistically determining what word is likely to follow another

To me this implies that the navigation AI is going to hallucinate parts of its model of the world, because it’s basing that model on what’s statically the most likely to be there as opposed to what’s actually there. What could go wrong?

Ah yes, Hanlon’s razor. Genuinely a great one to keep in mind at all times, along with it’s corollary Clarke’s law: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”

But in this particular case I think we need the much less frequently cited version by Douglas Hubbard: “Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.”

IIRC two states and several major cities have also successfully implemented rank choice, and in every case it’s been because of Democrats.

As more and more local governments make the change, it’ll become more popular and gain more support on the national level.