![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
42·
12 days ago(citation needed)
(citation needed)
That’s unfortunate and disappointing. It’s John Oliver’s recent LWT on Indian elections. He stated in the show that the site was created to get around any potential government censorship.
I’ll just leave this here
http://oppositesnakes.com This is definitely just a website about opposite snakes, totally not related to the topic of this thread in any way.
deleted by creator
Alright the exchange is funny but
ACKTUALLLY…
Antioxidants are at best nothing and at worst bad for you. The whole thing is marketing wank. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2099529/
Yeah, I’m fun at parties.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
FWIW I didn’t downvote you for this. I read the Ars article and saw the bit about them making it unlimited during the early pandemic days, but it seemed to imply that is was above board during other times. So if the whole case hinges on their actions during lockdown when people lost access to their own local libraries it becomes a letter vs spirit of the law thing to me personally. They broke the letter of the law, did they break the spirit of it? Was what they did immoral? The justice system isn’t perfect and as a society we continually refine and redefine our laws and have been forever. The state of Louisiana just signed a law into effect that requires poster sized copies of the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom, kindergarten through college. If someone breaks that law, what side of history will they be on?
If unlimited lending was something that IA was doing all the time, I can see it both ways. If it was for a few months during lockdown, then I think the court got this wrong.