FriendOfDeSoto

It's funny you picked Apple computers because they were in a legal fight with Apple records of Beatles fame who've been around longer and were only allowed to keep the name if they stayed out of the music business. Which went well until iTunes and then they found themselves back in the lawsuit.

They would have to try fighting it on non-trademark grounds. However, being able to point at having been awarded one afterwards may carry some weight there as well. My impression is that their strategy doesn't rest on this alone.

The strategy behind this is also to be able to sue after the fact to get a cut of whatever was created from stuff that ought to have been protected but wasn't. It's not just a clip of him doing triple alrights that he applied for TM for. There is also one of him sitting down, one of him standing up. They tried to cover a whole spread of sora et. al. generated bullshit. It's an interesting strategy that is only necessary because the law on the books lags behind the developments in image or video generation. It may not work at all but it'll be a success if they win one case with this.

I hope you are right. I personally don't see it. I think we cannot underestimate the cult factor. All it takes is a Vance or an orange (or even the deviant MTG) to point at it and screech like a Body Snatcher: "It's socialism! It's handouts! Kill it with fire!" It won't matter what you branded it as. Their branding will be stronger.

I am afraid that this isolated (and probably edited and not very scientific) example of people seeing the power is reason will not scale to the masses. The fear of socialism is irrational and I don't think you can fix that with rational explanations alone. It's not like people like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez aren't trying and there is enough of a base to get them elected - but not into executive power. On top of that you have the MAGA cult followers who would happily vote against their own self interest if they can say they owned the libs in the process.

I chose him because he is generally well liked. I haven't heard anybody shit talk him. I don't see him as a person of inaction or unaccountability. I do see him as somebody who acts from a set of values and who can heal wounds thoughtfully (without letting perpetrators go unpunished). Go ahead and replace him in your mind with somebody who fits that profile.

The problem with American politics is that it affects the whole world but the rest of the world doesn't get a say. If you organize armed resistance against 47, that becomes very active when he declares himself king with no more elections, you are looking at a civil war 2.0. The right-wing supporters are already armed and organized, you'd give them something to shoot at. And the standing military will probably majority side more with the other side. At the same time, while the US is distracted by killing each other at a higher rate than usual, China will grab Taiwan, Russia will push through to the Elbe river, etc. So it would be better for the rest of the world if you could not solve this predicament by force/assassination. Protest, strikes, use politics. But I can totally understand why the sentiment to use the 2nd amendment for its stated purpose for a change is an appealing option.

A socialist will not win 2028, provided there even is an election. NYC is not representative of the whole country. And most Americans are still on this cold war hangover where socialism became a dirty word. An outspoken socialist would not win. Unless we get another great depression - which will if history is our guide more likely lead to war. Or if they manage to fake centrism so believably well and are then okay to be a one-termer once they show their real colors. The Democrats need a Mr. Rogers type politician (preferably male, blame the Midwest) without scandals (so nobody from CA) who can appeal to a sense of decency again. #MADA

I don't think this would've happened though if there hadn't been the societal impetus that aided adoption. The singular they may have been around since Chaucer or Shakespeare - ~30 years ago, people didn't really use it. There was far more "he or she" going on, that's now been more commonly replaced with a "they," also because it's shorter. English benefits from the fact that the neutral pronoun slots right in to the existing grammar. Other languages struggle with finding such a neutral replacement because it's more often than not a new word and a slightly altered grammatical function. English is okay on the first problem and arguably okay to mostly okay on the second.

Laaaast Christmas ....

So this scientist believes this? Huh.

Jenson Huang is doing a lot of damage there.