skullgiver

The whole reason you're supposed to be standing up is to keep them short…

Correct, edited my post, thanks

You're not doing AJAX without Javascript, and that's what the Google search site is optimised for. Plus, there's no way to deal with the mandatory cookie consent popup without additional page loads either.

You can do most of Google with CSS but you can't do it easily without sacrificing functionality and Google doesn't care about the people without Javascript anyway. Why invest time and effort into making this stuff work for customers that don't earn you anything? It's not an open source nonprofit that cares about its users, we're talking about Google.

If your stand-up is that stressful and takes less than 30 seconds to a minute per speaker, you need to find a better job.

Unless thus is about stand-up comedy. In that case, you're 100% right.

They need Javascript to serve users an experience that doesn't look like it's from the 90s. "You don't need Javascript" is technically correct in the same way you don't need Google because you can go look through an encyclopedia in the library.

The kinds of people that disable Javascript probably don't use Google anyway, and if they do, they'll have their browsers so full of tracking protection that serving them costs more money than it earns.

I'm just kind of surprised Google still worked without JS up until now. The people who don't have Javascript enabled are such a tiny sliver of market share that Google may as well serve them a broken web page.

I think Duckduckgo still supports searching without Javascript, though you may need to wait for a meta refresh when you use the standard search engine integration, so make sure you use the right URL in your search engine settings.

I don't think this is possible without alt codes on standard Windows configurations. MacOS has shortcuts for them and Linux has them too (if you have compose enabled, which is disabled by default).

Works on phones through the special character input. Sometimes. Depends on your language, location, and keyboard of choice.

Seems rather unnecessary and pedantic to tell others to use it, though. This is a forum, not a thesis.

I see. In that case, I don't really have any good advice to give you, good luck with your endeavours!

I don't really know what people are doing to enrich their vocabulary and fluff up their language to be honest; my vocabulary and writing all stem from high school. However, my experience is that in order to write well, you need to read a lot. Learn what works for others, consider why it may not work for you, and pick up the good bits. If all else fails, open a dictionary, pick a word every day, and try to use it in a sentence before going to bed, just so you learn more synonyms and specific terms.

I'm pretty sure that when it comes to job applications, most people are probably using AI these days. Unless you think you can beat AI, it doesn't hurt to let the some kind of AI go over your text and steal some or the good bits.

That screenshot again proves that this person is extremely cringe, presumably a troll, but there's still no threat. At worst that's racism against Americans. Should obviously be removed by moderators from any normal online service that wants to encourage pleasant conversation, but that's not necessarily illegal.

As for the PDF, that's not a legal definition by any kind, it's a quick explainer for a law that only applies to hosting providers receiving complaints from European authorities. So yes, if the Belgian police sent a takedown notice regarding terroristic content then it does apply.

However, that regulation is mere instruction to EU states to draft compliant laws. It's not actionable legislation in itself (similar to the GDPR).

The full text of the Regulation does include this instruction for EU countries, which I haven't seen before:

In order to provide clarity about the actions that both hosting service providers and competent authorities are to take to address the dissemination of terrorist content online, this Regulation should establish a definition of ‘terrorist content’ for preventative purposes, consistent with the definitions of relevant offences under Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). Given the need to address the most harmful terrorist propaganda online, that definition should cover material that incites or solicits someone to commit, or to contribute to the commission of, terrorist offences, solicits someone to participate in activities of a terrorist group, or glorifies terrorist activities including by disseminating material depicting a terrorist attack. The definition should also include material that provides instruction on the making or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons or noxious or hazardous substances, as well as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) substances, or on other specific methods or techniques, including the selection of targets, for the purpose of committing or contributing to the commission of terrorist offences. Such material includes text, images, sound recordings and videos, as well as live transmissions of terrorist offences, that cause a danger of further such offences being committed. When assessing whether material constitutes terrorist content within the meaning of this Regulation, competent authorities and hosting service providers should take into account factors such as the nature and wording of statements, the context in which the statements were made and their potential to lead to harmful consequences in respect of the security and safety of persons. The fact that the material was produced by, is attributable to or is disseminated on behalf of a person, group or entity included in the Union list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts and subject to restrictive measures should constitute an important factor in the assessment.

However, the Regulation also refers to human rights such as freedom of expression. One can be of the opinion that it's better for the USA to stop existing without any plans or support for actual genocide. Someone expressing hate for your country isn't immediately a terrorist.

Do you have a copy of the actual threat? Because "you are a settler" is stupid but not an actual threat.

I don't know where you got that picture from, I can't find the legal definition for a terroristic threat within the EU. The best I could find is:

For the purposes of this Convention, "public provocation to commit a terorist offence" means the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct, whether or not directly committed.

That's just a convention, though, not direct law. The definition by the convention does require proof of intent, which I haven't found about the cringe hexbear user.

Shouting non-credible threats (that, based on the screenshot, I can only assume are ironic in the first place) into the internet void isn't making "terroristic threats". Feeding the trolls and name calling isn't conductive either.

Most of the internet is kids and people with nothing better to do with their lives.