This isn’t a smoking gun.

You can’t trust that ChatGPT is telling the truth, but also the use of copyrighted material is acceptable under a fair use standard written into US copyright law. Whether it is fair use or not is up to a court to decide, but “without permission” doesn’t automatically mean “illegally.”

A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

Some of the universities mentioned in the article are public institutions. SCOTUS held in Healy v James that the 1st Amendment applies to public universities. So some of the actions could be considered 1st Amendment violations.

Except these restrictions prevent speech, not harm.

That’s a false dilemma. There’s a middle ground between allowing only approved speech and allowing any speech whatsoever. And we already make that distinction. Fascists don’t believe in free speech and threaten the rights of others through threats of violence, which isn’t protected speech. Likewise fraud, libel, slander, blackmail, false advertising, and CSAM aren’t protected and are considered harmful.

Driving predictably. Millions of people do it every day and it prevents accidents, which saves lives.

If I have to wait for an employee to unlock an item, I’m just buying it somewhere else, whether it’s online or another brick and mortar that doesn’t make me beg to spend money there. Same with stores that have passcode locks on their bathroom doors. I’m not asking a retail worker for permission to pee.

It’s also possible to be a person who genuinely cares about classic art and the environment already. And it’s also possible to be a poor person with little to no power to influence the fossil fuel industry. Chiding people for not having the privilege of free time and minimal obligations to protest isn’t very productive. Again, change needs to happen at the top and it’s not going to be achieved through appeals to emotion or coercion via symbolic or actual threats to famous art or sites.

I will not be fair, the publication isn’t. Why should I?

Because arguing dishonestly makes you look irrational and does their propaganda work for them.

but you are more likely to try to distance yourself from fossil fuel reform movements, and that’s all they need you to do to be successful.

Not really. This isn’t an effective form of protest or reform. Stunts like this allow articles like this to be written in the first place, but the stunts, even if written of with the highest of praise, are useless. Effective action would involve changing the minds of those who profit from fossil fuels the most and making it unprofitable for them to continue. You don’t need to convince people who care about world heritage sites or famous artwork. You need to convince the profiteers of industry and that won’t come from an appeal to emotion but from a threat to their financial well-being.

To be fair, that’s a false dilemma. Caring about Stonehenge doesn’t have to be compared to caring about fossil fuel reform. You can care about both or neither to any degree and they can be completely unrelated.

Find a student at a university whose student accounts get access to jstor.

I completely forgot about that game until you mentioned it. Fun times.

There’s not enough information that I’d be comfortable drawing conclusions about this. One person’s past flame can be another person’s one who got away. It’s entirely possible she’s keeping tabs on you online in a method you’re not aware of, but if you don’t know that she’s intentionally moved to be close to you and she hasn’t done anything concerning like made threats or faked a pregnancy or created circumstances that compel you to interact with her against your normal interactions, I wouldn’t guess stalking. Some people do coincidentally reconnect.

That said, the important question is whether you want to engage with her or not going forward. If you don’t, I wouldn’t lead her on by giving her any more attention. Make a clean break and just tell her you’re not interested. If she reacts with melodrama or stalking behavior, then you’ll definitely know you made the right decision.

If you are interested in possibly pursuing something with her or at least giving her a chance, be honest that you’re a little freaked out about how she’s previously behaved. You shouldn’t proceed with her thinking that the behavior was not concerning. She should respect your comfort levels if she wants a relationship. If she’s dismissive of your concerns and comfort, it’s a big red flag that you shouldn’t engage further.

It might be similar to a song you’ve heard but you’re misremembering the notes of the existing song.

Maybe try playing it for an app that recognizes the song that’s playing and then listen to any songs it guesses might be the song.

Top down design of protocols by a security- and privacy-conscious organization rather than leaving security to corporations as a side item or PR campaign topic when their primary focuses are marketing, advertising, data collection, and intellectual property.

Famous sportsballer ages like every else. News at 11.

This is less of an issue if you judge everything that isn’t first hand from a known friend or family member as suspect or at least just a waste of time. Facebook used to be a place to talk to people you knew in the real world. You could ignore anything they reposted and still engage with the actual examples of their own experiences that they posted. But now it’s so flooded with ads and listicles and clickbait and video clips that it’s not even worth trying to keep up with the people you actually know.

It’s still not stealing. It’s plagiarism or fraud or any number of other terms, but stealing necessarily requires the deprivation of a limited, rivalrous thing, like money or property. You can’t steal fame or exposure or credit, except poetically. And by that point, the word becomes so watered down that it’s meaningless. You might as well say I’m stealing your life seconds at a time by writing this extra sentence.

The purpose of using the term stealing here is only to borrow the negative moral connotations of the term, but it doesn’t communicate clearly what exactly is happening.

It’s perfectly valid to say you consider it morally equivalent with theft, but it’s not stealing.

Also you can’t just make your own micronation wherever you want. It has to already exist.

This kind of makes the concept of a micronation useless. The point is that anyone can make their own nation with their own rules wherever they are or go. If you have to pick someone else’s, then it’s no different than picking someone else’s recognized nation.

Never try to do anything good because bad might inadvertently result from the action.