I mean, that’s better than selling to a private person, still feels weird, since disclaiming a patent is absolutely possible, and has a 100% chance of leading to the desired outcome, vs whatever small chance there may be that the University starts taking profits on it. Or even just sees themselves forced to sell the patent, because of potential financial issues.

Yeah, the risk is small, but eliminating it in it’s entirety would’ve been easily possible, so it just feels a bit weird he didn’t do it.

If he wanted it to be freely available, why did he even sell the patent ? Just disclaim at the patent office. Selling is just asking the new holder to start enforcing.

Führer might only mean leader in Germany, but it’s rarely used outside of refering to Hitler nowadays.

Leader, in modern German, would be translated as “Anführer”, not “Führer” specifically because of the connotations. Also, using the term fuhrer in English, instead of translating as leader, clearly means it’s being used as a title, rather than a factual descriptor of what he was.

You can use Führer in context, but as it’s a title that was specifically created by and for Hitler, and never used before or since, it’s generally not used as a title for him, because people don’t want to give him the post mortem respect of addressing him by this title.

And for context, the entire German language Wikipedia entry of Hitler, calls Hitler Führer a total of 17 times. 8 of those are in direct quotes, 3 in indirect quotes, 2 of them are describing his official title “Führer und Reichsanzler” (outside of quotes only, to prevent double counting), 2 use the literal meaning of “leader” in the context of the party, NOT his title as dictator, 2 of them are talking about how he saw himself, and one is drawing a linguistic analogous link between “Führer” and “Geführten” (Leader and Followers).

Outside of quotes, there is not a single use of the term “Der Führer” as an actual honorific title (“The Führer”) for Hitler in the entire German language Wikipedia page (which is 30-40k words long).

And who gets to decide who gets killed ? Who is infallible, incorruptible and flawless enough to decide who gets executed ?

And if you cannot name them, then tell me: How many innocent people are you willing to murder, per 100 executions. If you cannot name a flawless judge, then innocents will be executed. That is a fact. So tell me: How many innocents are you willing to murder, for heinous criminals to be executed instead of getting life without parole ?

This dude was literally currently at trial for murder. That argument might apply AFTER someone has been wrongly acquitted.

This logic is literally NEVER applicable inside a court room, before the verdict has been read.

So you’re saying the victim of a crime should get to act as judge jury and executioner ?

Like I’m sorry you had to go through that, but how would you feel it your child was falsely accused of murder, and then revenge killed by a family member of a victim at trial.

There’s a reason we don’t allow vigilante justice.

Ah yes. Classic “Everyone deserves a fair trial, until I think they’ve done a bad enough crime, in which case I’ll activately cheer for that right being taken away”.

Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.

You people cheering this on, and encouraging have on your hands the blood of every single innocent person who was ever killed or assaulted by a vigilante.

Women may not not be a mathematical minority, but they absolutely are a cultural/societal minoritiy.

Cultural minorities have nothing to do with the absolute number of members the group has, but how much political and social power and influence the group holds.

That’s why black africans during apartheid Africa would still be considered minorities, even though they made up the mathematical majority of inhabitants.

the rest of the “civilized” world was essentially keeping Germany permanently poor, living under such misery breeds a certain…psychotic world view.

Jup. There’s a very strong argument to be made that had the terms of the treaty of Versailles not been so unfair and hostile towards Germany, World War II would have never happened.

Rehabilitation and reconstruction is ALWAYS the best option for the winning side of a large war to extend to the losing side, regardless of who/how/why the war started. Heavily penalising and fucking over the loser for years and years after the war is just going to foster resentment and discontent amongst the population, and make them feel (arguably, with a degree of validity) that conquering th countries fucking them over is the only way their country will see prosperity again.

I mean the layout in terms of functions is generally standardised between PS and XBox style controllers (i.e. “back” is the right hand button, “confirm” is the lower one…) it’s just that the buttons have different symbols for those functions across PS and XBox style controllers.

I’m not really counting the first two, as they were more temporary wooden bridges. The 1209 London Bridge was the first, proper, permanent bridge across the Thames.

I mean it was the first ever permanent bridge crossing the Thames in London, and for a long time it was the only bridge in the entirety of east London (despite barely being east of the east-west midpoint of London). London bridge has a lot of interesting history, even if the current one is visually boring.

Jay Foreman has a fun video on the history of London Bridge (https://youtu.be/u5CguqywlBk)

There’s a fun video on the history of old/medium/new London bridge in Jay Foreman’s Unfinished London series:

https://youtu.be/u5CguqywlBk

There’s also a common (and completely untrue) urban legend that the guy thought he was buying tower bridge, not London bridge.

I think the primary distinction is that a weapon in a criminal context is typically something that is used to threaten/coerce someone, or to enable you to cause (more/more severe) physical harm/incapacitation in a physical altercation.

Date rape drugs aren’t used to threaten/coerce people, and whilst they can cause harm, it is generally not the intended goal when someone uses them. And intent/willingness to use a weapon to physically harm someone, in my opinion, is a relevant distinction to relatively “”“peacefully”“” knocking someone out. Of course committing date rape is still an utterly horrific thing, and people who do it should be charged and held accountable to the fullest extent of justice, but it is still different from threatening someone with a weapon and forcing yourself on them. (Also, whilst I have no actual data on this, it seems logical to me that a conscious victim is far more likely to receive (more serious) injuries as they struggle, vs. an unconscious one)

So whilst I agree that classifying date rape drugs as weapons is a good move, there definitely are relevant distinctions as to why drugs are typically not considered weapons.

“They’re extradonarily narrow” whilst literally talking about an apple patent that covers ANY type of digital display device whatsoever that has rounded corners.

That’s not even close to “extremely narrow” in scope.

Extremely narrow in scope would be defining a certain radius of curvature (within a small +/- range), in combination with an aspect ratio (again, with a small +/- margin) and for a specific class of screen.

That would be an adequately and acceptably narrow design patent.

And on top, there needs to be a limitation on design patents (any patents, frankly) that makes them unenforceable if the holder of the patent hasn’t had a product matching the patent on the marker for several years, and isn’t currently and actively working on R&D to develop such a product. (With some common sense clauses to prevent abuse, such as ordering one employee to spend 5 minutes a month working on a concept so that you’re technically perpetually engaged in R&D, or listing a depreciated product for an absurdly high price that no one will ever pay, so you can say technically it’s still on the market without needing to actually still manufacturer/support it).

Though I’d be happy to hear counter arguments for why this would be a bad idea.