You were under the impression that satellite communication doesn't involve photons.

They're hexagonal cells. However the bird projects photons, not snowflakes.

Surely it's impossible.

There's always a usable signal directly adjacent to any given cell within the penumbra of the spot beam that covers it. It's not intentional, it's just physics. GEO and LEO alike.

Penumbra.

Tell me that you don't have any capacity beyond weasel words without telling me that you don't.

I really should have called this out earlier, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You routinely make talking points that you can neither qualify nor quantify. What's a measured response even supposed to look like? What's it even going to accomplish? Especially on social media where by the time you "measure" anything, there's going to be more of it uploaded before you can even do anything about the first one.

And we've already seen where this leads as well: Nobody, anywhere, ever has the capacity to respond to that. Inevitably, topics that have nothing to do with it get caught in the crossfire. I'm sure you're already aware of this; I'd even bet on it. All that the Biden DoJ managed to do was suppress political discourse about a stupid laptop, and only for a few months. Everything else, including all the COVID-19 disinformation, spread like wildfire.

Perhaps that's your intent? So far, it seems so. You've already claimed to know what I'm like without knowing me at all. You've already demonstrated an inclination towards removing what you might find offensive before you even know whether you find it offensive under the dubious (likewise weasel word) claim of it not being black and white. What is that supposed to mean? We partially censor it? YouTube effectively already does that, and this is what we ended up with:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fspread...

Such irony that the word "democratic" will get content demonetized.

That's definitely not it. The responses vary, sometimes it will simply be a question like "what color?" rather than to say "we don't have any".

You neither know who I am nor what I'm "like". But if you want to really get technical about it, Trump didn't issue any response, let alone a measured one. Him and Carr simply ran their mouths in public. Everything that happened afterward was done by ABC and its affiliates.

If you want a measured response, we can go that way too. The Biden DoJ was already aware that the laptop story wasn't disinformation, moreover that it had nothing to do with Russia, when they pressured social media companies to suppress it. That certainly seems like a "measured response" to me given they already had all the information about it before they even started.

You call me a cretin, yet you're the one sitting here advocating for exactly what has just been used against you, simultaneously you sit here and complain about it. If you don't understand why the law is black and white, or why the first amendment exists by the time you finished high school, assuming you even did, then there's not much anybody can do to help you understand the self-harm you're inflicting, even if you don't realize it. More likely you just assume you'll never be the target of it.

If you look at my post history, I rarely make anything more than a slight against anybody, but let's make one thing clear:

The only difference between you and Trump is that he got elected. We need less of that, not more. You're going to have to set up your stasi, gestapo, or whatever you want to call it over my dead body, regardless of which one of you gets there first.

Hmm...I think ChatGPT will just have to learn to never say No in Japanese. Ever.

So if the Trump administration decides that Jimmy Kimmel is spreading disinformation, then in your book he's in the right to pressure local TV stations to stop airing Jimmy Kimmel?

The Biden administration made a not so dissimilar effort against the laptop story via the FBI, having them pressure Facebook, Twitter, and if the second link in TFS is to be believed, Youtube as well.

If you want to be all authoritarian like that, at least try to be consistent about it, otherwise you'd be no different from Trump.

No, but this really lacks context.

I've actually responded to that already, making this the fourth time, so let me state clearly: No, I have not. And that is in no way a requirement to calling out people who do. Only a fool such as yourself would claim otherwise.

What is normal? And the way I've seen these requests get made are in no way mild.

Guess again.

You must have a lot of experience with being outraged by news.

Nothing, I do it all the time.

What "said" paper? You're implying a form of some sort, obviously, but I'm trying to think of any form I've ever filled out that has explicitly asked for a pronoun, other than perhaps a complaint form or a witness statement. I haven't had the need to fill out any such forms in decades.

And as I've already stated twice: I've never been pressured to do this. I have however heard from others who have, and have seen others get pressured to do it publicly. You don't have to have personally been wronged before you're allowed to say something. The fact that you have made great effort to indicate that you clearly believe otherwise suggests that you have either no intelligence worth speaking of, no integrity, or more likely, neither of the two whatsoever.

Asylum fraud is, as a matter of law, illegal. Committing asylum fraud while remaining in the country is also, as a matter of law, illegal immigration. A person who does this, is, thus, an illegal immigrant. You can't get more succinct than that.

I'd ask for numbers, but something tells me you will not provide any. Big Brother requires that you hate me, and you will obey.

And where are your numbers for this?

Even if that were true, what difference does that make? In my own experience, the words "fascist" and "socialist" are very commonly used incorrectly in political discourse, even in the pejorative, but I haven't heard of anybody arguing that this is some form of hate speech, in the manner you are here. Even if they were, asking people to not use the term when it accurately and concisely describes something defies all reason.

I don't have a king, and if I'm being totally honest here, your neurons are obviously crossed given you somehow jumped to the conclusion that I have any kind of political allegiance with any of the people who commented about eating cats and dogs. There is nothing wrong, morally or ethically, with wanting to curb illegal immigration, especially if it means providing more means of legal immigration. And wanting to do so is not at all in any way an indication of a political allegiance. The fact that you're claiming otherwise just tells me that you're only interested in being part of the problem.

It's a good thing he can't have another term then.

More likely some combination thereof, and I'm sure there are other contributors as well. Either way, shouting down a reasonable ask to have less illegal immigration and more legal immigration, if that is what you're doing, doesn't help.

I think you're making edge cases to be the rule rather than the exception, which is intellectually dishonest.

It's nothing of the sort, it's a very concise term that says exactly what it means. Given the terminology used obviously matters more to you than the issue at hand, and given you obviously have contempt at a reasonable ask of allowing more legal immigration where it makes sense to do so, it's obvious at this point that you prefer to be part of the problem.