Sure.

one would need to explain a mechanism.

Not really - one just needs to say ‘this a novel mechanism of producing an antigen, we don’t really know if there are any long-term affects’.

Very speculative and etraordinarily unlikely, I agree.

Also be a little wary of the ‘recorded side effects’. In the UK (and I’m sure its not alone), the NHS asked people to record any medical event that happened for a period post-vaccination that could conceivably be a side effect, in an abundance of caution - the idea that they could then sift the data for any actual side effects.

People often quote this raw data ‘look n people had heart attacks after vaccination’ - without factoring the expected number of heart attacks if that cohort had not been vaccinated. There’s some great stuff in the raw data like people who suffered twisted ankles. Reasonable to record, as say a statistically significant increase in twisted ankles could (say) suggest balance problems were a side effect (they aren’t)

Context: I’m fully vaccinated with 4 mRNA shots, I volunteered at a vaccination hub during the first lockdown.

It could be argued that they are still new in that we don’t know of any long term affects that might crop up in 20 years time.

Conversely of course any long term affects of a fukll-blown Covid infection that could crop up in 20 years time are likely to be considerably worse.

They can probably just make it a requirement for OEMs that want to license Windows for a pre-install.

You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

Yes.The ones who routinely use copyright to get some form of payment. I know several people who had their photographs reublished by the Daily Mail and subsequently got payment. It happens. It’s an imperfect system, but still one that allows small artists to make a living.

he amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable.

I mean, it really isn’t. It’s the entire backbone of an industry whereby, for example a photographer or illustrator can supply woirk to a magazine on a single use license. It’s how people who supply photo libraries make a living. It’s how small bands have at least some protection.

And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

Apart from - you know, all the photographers, designers, authors and musicians out there.

Thank goodness we absolutely know for certain that no VPN would ever sell your browsing data.

I don’t have a particular problem with instances deciding that they want to fund themselves through advertising. When the Fediverse was developing, one of my predictions was that instances would come up with multiple different ways to fund each other including donations, subscriptions and advertising.

Do you never e-mail people with gmail or yahoo addresses?

I did actually click through to the original community to

I’m on kbin.social but subscribe to unitedkingdom on Feddit - look like it is workinhg OK at the moment

Imagine all the stuff that Grammarly gets to see

Interestingly, it looks as if nothing was really called innovative before 1960, with usage peaking in 2000, and its now in decline

https://www.etymonline.com/word/innovative

Can you give an example of something that actually was innovative, that no-one called innovative?

Those certain contradict your attempt to place a weird limit on for ‘NIMBY’ can be used.

OK. Personally, I’m quite interested in it from the opposite point of view. I’m working with a large public body in the UK, who currently use Twitter and I’m attempting to get them interested in setting up their own Mastodon instance as an alternative. (Twitter embeds don’t work on their public websites any more).

Having the potential ability to reach Threads users is certainly helping me persuade them about thinking about the move to Mastodon - and not Threads.

It’s a bit of polemic that suggests that the main reason for blocking Threads is that is full off appalling hateful content. I haven’t used Threads since in initially signing up, so I had a quick look and it wasn’t particularly toxic, as far as I can see. If it is - and that content comes across, that is of course good reason for instances to block it - and I’m sure they will. Meanwhile I was amused to see on Threads the same debate been handled from the opposite direction:

Zuckerberg requesting and being given the your intimate personal information, isn’t really the same as s Zuckerberg plan to make information on a Meta social network readable from another social network, but sure. I’m not saying Meta is trustworthy, I’m saying let’s see what they do. Having a way for people to interact with people on Threads, without having to join Threads could be quite useful.

Wait a see what they actually do. Mad idea, I know.

deleted by creator

It was a poorly worded question, no need to be defensive.