So, I am late but I need to say two or three things.
Ppl who follow me know I was against D’s resurrection plot because like this S1 and S2 were written for nothing. But Dilsha is here and I read comments about Miran being a crying baby +
#Hercai

If it doesn,t make sense...
something else is going on.....

#xrp
#xrpcommmunity

Expand your thinking

This thread is updated and can be approached from multiple perspectives.
That is how big Platform 2020 is
#TheGreatAwakeningWorldwide

Connect the dotes

From @jack:

Starting now, we are changing the way we do things at Twitter. Even though we have been following policies we created, that we thought were good and necessary, it just hasn’t had the desired effect of promoting good discourse. Effective immediately, we are changing.

The basic principle that now guides us is that instead of trying to manipulate discourse, we are opening it up, and making ourselves more transparent and accountable, and resisting attempts at censorship of us or our users.

Further, we have been fundamentally operating under the false premise that we, our our news and fact-checking partners, are smarter or better at understanding information than you, our users, are. This is a vain fiction, and we will drop this pretense.

We have long known that we are not just another social media site, but the place where citizens, governments, and organizations communicate with each other, for essential purposes. We have a great responsibility to the public to be open. So, we change to improve.

First: we will no longer proactively delete any content, except for: private information harming a person other than who posted it (e.g. doxxing, revenge porn, etc.), and any content we are legally required to remove.

The ten points of the Nuremberg Code
1) The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

2) The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. 2/n

3) The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. 3/n

4) The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. 4/n

5) No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects. 5/n

Daily Bookmarks to GAVNet 02/11/2021

1) Dreaded thread on why I think the response to postcritique is so vitriolic. Short version: Because literary studies is a discipline in search of an application.

2) Before I go on, I'll say from the outset that many in lit studies explicitly reject the idea that the field *should* have an application. My opinion is that's fine if you want to do book clubs, but if you want an institution you can't ignore that difficult issue. But anyway...

3) The evidence by this point is overwhelming that when lit scholars talk about 'method' we're actually just talking about ourselves: 'ways of reading,' 'how we argue,' 'phenomenology of reading,' etc. etc.

4) David Kurnick nicely illustrates this phenomenon:

5) But none of this is method discussion. Talking about ourselves, how we approach our objects of study, our motives and objectives, our commitments, etc. would be the *beginning* of a method convo in every other discipline. In lit studies it's the *end*, or the whole convo!