LogoThread Easy
  • 탐색
  • 스레드 작성
LogoThread Easy

트위터 스레드의 올인원 파트너

© 2025 Thread Easy All Rights Reserved.

탐색

Newest first — browse tweet threads

Keep on to blur preview images; turn off to show them clearly

RT @chimesatmidnyte: "The Angel Interventions with Mr Doré", by Dan Hillier.

RT @chimesatmidnyte: "The Angel Interventions with Mr Doré", by Dan Hillier.

Root node of the web of threads: https://t.co/ifH80GcLpo

avatar for James Torre
James Torre
Sun Dec 07 17:39:49
In 9th grade learning about the Constitution, we took up the topic of “prior restraint” of the press fresh off the Pentagon Papers SC case. The difference between EU and US in this regard is pretty important in light of current discussions. 

 Grok summary of prior restraint both voluntary and mandatory:

**US Approach (First Amendment)**: Prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional and bears a "heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." It is almost never permitted, with only extremely narrow exceptions (e.g., wartime troop movements, obscenity, or incitement to violence posing clear and present danger). Courts overwhelmingly favors post-publication remedies (damages or criminal sanctions) over pre-publication censorship. Cases like *Near v. Minnesota* (1931) and *New York Times v. United States* (Pentagon Papers, 1971) established this near-absolute bar.

**EU/ECHR Approach (Article 10 ECHR & EU Charter Article 11)**: Prior restraints are not prohibited per se but are subjected to the "most careful scrutiny" due to their inherent dangers and chilling effect on the press. They are permissible only if strictly prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim (e.g., national security, privacy, reputation, public safety), and are necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly upheld that prior restraints require exceptional justification but are not categorically invalid (e.g., *Observer and Guardian v. UK* (Spycatcher case, 1991)).

**Practical Outcome**: European courts (including in the UK pre- and post-Brexit, and across EU states) routinely grant interim injunctions to block publication in privacy (*Von Hannover v. Germany*), defamation, or confidentiality cases. US courts almost never do, viewing prior restraint as worse than any harm from publication.

**Voluntary Restraint**: Both systems allow voluntary self-censorship or agreements not to publish (e.g., settlements or off-the-record arrangements), but Europe has more institutionalised voluntary mechanisms (e.g., UK DA-Notices or press cooperation with authorities on national security), while the US press is more likely to resist voluntary government requests due to the strong cultural and legal aversion to any pre-publication interference. 

Overall, the US treats prior restraint (mandatory or encouraged) as anathema to free expression; the EU treats it as a legitimate but heavily scrutinised tool when rights must be balanced.

In 9th grade learning about the Constitution, we took up the topic of “prior restraint” of the press fresh off the Pentagon Papers SC case. The difference between EU and US in this regard is pretty important in light of current discussions. Grok summary of prior restraint both voluntary and mandatory: **US Approach (First Amendment)**: Prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional and bears a "heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." It is almost never permitted, with only extremely narrow exceptions (e.g., wartime troop movements, obscenity, or incitement to violence posing clear and present danger). Courts overwhelmingly favors post-publication remedies (damages or criminal sanctions) over pre-publication censorship. Cases like *Near v. Minnesota* (1931) and *New York Times v. United States* (Pentagon Papers, 1971) established this near-absolute bar. **EU/ECHR Approach (Article 10 ECHR & EU Charter Article 11)**: Prior restraints are not prohibited per se but are subjected to the "most careful scrutiny" due to their inherent dangers and chilling effect on the press. They are permissible only if strictly prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim (e.g., national security, privacy, reputation, public safety), and are necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly upheld that prior restraints require exceptional justification but are not categorically invalid (e.g., *Observer and Guardian v. UK* (Spycatcher case, 1991)). **Practical Outcome**: European courts (including in the UK pre- and post-Brexit, and across EU states) routinely grant interim injunctions to block publication in privacy (*Von Hannover v. Germany*), defamation, or confidentiality cases. US courts almost never do, viewing prior restraint as worse than any harm from publication. **Voluntary Restraint**: Both systems allow voluntary self-censorship or agreements not to publish (e.g., settlements or off-the-record arrangements), but Europe has more institutionalised voluntary mechanisms (e.g., UK DA-Notices or press cooperation with authorities on national security), while the US press is more likely to resist voluntary government requests due to the strong cultural and legal aversion to any pre-publication interference. Overall, the US treats prior restraint (mandatory or encouraged) as anathema to free expression; the EU treats it as a legitimate but heavily scrutinised tool when rights must be balanced.

Subscribe https://t.co/Xm1OaUU8jk • seed investing • writing • ॐ •🙏• I use '—' • tweets saved 90 days • 📷

avatar for Steven Sinofsky
Steven Sinofsky
Sun Dec 07 17:38:36
RT @zhou_honglu: Swing by! Live now at NeurIPS 2025 → the Multimodal Algorithmic Reasoning Workshop!📍 Upper Level, Room 11A/B

This morning…

RT @zhou_honglu: Swing by! Live now at NeurIPS 2025 → the Multimodal Algorithmic Reasoning Workshop!📍 Upper Level, Room 11A/B This morning…

AI researcher & teacher @SCAI_ASU. Former President of @RealAAAI; Chair of @AAAS Sec T. Here to tweach #AI. YouTube Ch: https://t.co/4beUPOmf6y Bsky: rao2z

avatar for Subbarao Kambhampati (కంభంపాటి సుబ్బారావు)
Subbarao Kambhampati (కంభంపాటి సుబ్బారావు)
Sun Dec 07 17:33:52
The short bursts of activity that could actually help you live longer:
1. Posting rage-baits on your favourite social-network app
2. Arguing with your spouse - contest everything Plato said.
3. Internet trolling sessions: make them hate you for real
4. Vigorous fast-food consumption: the later, the better; the faster, the greater the “benefit”
5. Binge-watching your favourite Netflix shows at 2.0x.
6. Brain-rotting with multiple devices while watching a show (see item 5)
7. Playing practical jokes on your elderly family members
8. Smoking a fag after a shot of Jägermeister is the perfect way to wrap up the day

You’d be shocked, but all of the above is scientifically proven. Ask ChatGPT about it!

The short bursts of activity that could actually help you live longer: 1. Posting rage-baits on your favourite social-network app 2. Arguing with your spouse - contest everything Plato said. 3. Internet trolling sessions: make them hate you for real 4. Vigorous fast-food consumption: the later, the better; the faster, the greater the “benefit” 5. Binge-watching your favourite Netflix shows at 2.0x. 6. Brain-rotting with multiple devices while watching a show (see item 5) 7. Playing practical jokes on your elderly family members 8. Smoking a fag after a shot of Jägermeister is the perfect way to wrap up the day You’d be shocked, but all of the above is scientifically proven. Ask ChatGPT about it!

CPO at https://t.co/BNZzlkTfVp. Founder of https://t.co/hOAmca8qLm and https://t.co/dRwgbZCSOw. Coffee-making, parenting, building, exploring: RU → CN → NZ → CL → UK → NZ → PL → UK?

avatar for Stas Kulesh
Stas Kulesh
Sun Dec 07 17:18:46
🚢 Capstone of @NeurIPSConf was #ModelShip25!

- model lab tea
- great food and drinks
- beautiful views of the SD Bay
- DJ that made AI nerds actually DANCE

Incredibly well organized by @caithrin and @ellehcimnehs, and powered by @outshiftbycisco, @LambdaAPI, and @DecibelVC.

Thank you for joining us and we'll see you in SF next year!

- @dylan522p  @natolambert @FanaHOVA @jordanschneider et al

🚢 Capstone of @NeurIPSConf was #ModelShip25! - model lab tea - great food and drinks - beautiful views of the SD Bay - DJ that made AI nerds actually DANCE Incredibly well organized by @caithrin and @ellehcimnehs, and powered by @outshiftbycisco, @LambdaAPI, and @DecibelVC. Thank you for joining us and we'll see you in SF next year! - @dylan522p @natolambert @FanaHOVA @jordanschneider et al

achieve ambition with intentionality, intensity, & integrity - @dxtipshq - @sveltesociety - @aidotengineer - @latentspacepod - @cognition + @smol_ai

avatar for swyx #DevWritersRetreat
swyx #DevWritersRetreat
Sun Dec 07 17:18:29
爆款预定!🍌Nano Banana Pro 锐评世间万物!

随便给一个领域让大香蕉给这个领域从夯到拉打分

这个玩法最近巨火,我们的图也非常漂亮,AI 生成的出人意料会很有话题度

是引战、反串、钓鱼必备的佳品

他还特别犟就不展示低分的名称,非得上手段。

------提示词------

【核心任务指令】
你是一个拥有实时网络搜索能力和顶尖数据可视化设计能力的AI专家。请执行以下两个步骤:
调研阶段:立刻针对用户指定的【2025 中国新能源汽车】进行全面的网络调研。搜集关于该领域内不同子产品、型号或作品的大众口碑、市场热度、专业评测及用户反馈数据。

可视化阶段:基于你的调研结果,设计一张专业的信息图表(Infographic)。你需要将调研到的具体项目,精准地分类填入下面定义的五个“从夯到拉”的视觉等级模块中。

【用户指定目标领域/产品】
[在此处填写你需要调研的内容,例如:2024年热门智能手机、市面上的无糖茶饮料品牌、近十年的漫威电影、程序员常用的代码编辑器]

【图像设计要求】
整体风格:
一张结构清晰、现代感强的模块化信息图表,采用“Bento Grid”(便当盒网格)布局。背景干净简洁,聚焦于内容呈现。视觉上必须体现出从高到低的强烈层级落差感。

等级结构与视觉定义(严格执行以下五级):

第1级(最高层):夯 (Hāng)
调研填充标准:根据调研,该领域内目前公认的“版本之子”、具有统治级热度、无可争议的顶流产品/作品。

视觉表现:占据画面最上方或最大的版面模块。色调为极具爆发力的爆裂红与辉煌金,带有光晕或能量外溢的视觉特效。字体最大、最粗。模块内需展示调研到的代表性产品的名称或高质量图像,并配以极简的赞美短语(如“全网吹爆”、“神作”)。

第2级:顶级

调研填充标准:硬核实力派,虽然热度可能不及“夯”,但口碑极佳,是行家首选的优质项目。

视觉表现:位于第二层。色调为坚实、高级的燃烧橙与金属银。模块设计显得扎实、富有质感。展示代表性实力派产品。

第3级:人上人

调研填充标准:优越之选,品味在线,买了/看了绝对不亏的中坚力量,代表了一定的鉴赏力。

视觉表现:位于中层。色调为明亮、干净的柠檬黄与冷灰。设计风格现代、清爽。展示代表性优质中产产品。

第4级:NPC

调研填充标准:毫无记忆点的大众脸产品,凑数的工业流水线产物,无功无过,容易被遗忘,必须要写上具体的产品或品牌或者人名不要含糊其辞。

视觉表现:位于中下层。色调为平淡乏味的面包色/米色或纸板棕。模块设计显得普通、重复、缺乏个性。展示那些非常平庸的产品。

第5级(最底层):拉完了

调研填充标准:调研中发现的公认“避雷针”、“智商税”、灾难级失败产品或甚至不如没有的存在,必须要写上具体的产品或品牌或者人名不要含糊其辞。

视觉表现:挤在画面最底部或角落,视觉空间被压缩。色调为绝望黑、惨白,并带有明显的数字故障(Glitch)、破碎或腐烂的视觉效果。展示那些著名的“翻车”产品,并配以警示性短语(如“快逃”、“大冤种”)。

爆款预定!🍌Nano Banana Pro 锐评世间万物! 随便给一个领域让大香蕉给这个领域从夯到拉打分 这个玩法最近巨火,我们的图也非常漂亮,AI 生成的出人意料会很有话题度 是引战、反串、钓鱼必备的佳品 他还特别犟就不展示低分的名称,非得上手段。 ------提示词------ 【核心任务指令】 你是一个拥有实时网络搜索能力和顶尖数据可视化设计能力的AI专家。请执行以下两个步骤: 调研阶段:立刻针对用户指定的【2025 中国新能源汽车】进行全面的网络调研。搜集关于该领域内不同子产品、型号或作品的大众口碑、市场热度、专业评测及用户反馈数据。 可视化阶段:基于你的调研结果,设计一张专业的信息图表(Infographic)。你需要将调研到的具体项目,精准地分类填入下面定义的五个“从夯到拉”的视觉等级模块中。 【用户指定目标领域/产品】 [在此处填写你需要调研的内容,例如:2024年热门智能手机、市面上的无糖茶饮料品牌、近十年的漫威电影、程序员常用的代码编辑器] 【图像设计要求】 整体风格: 一张结构清晰、现代感强的模块化信息图表,采用“Bento Grid”(便当盒网格)布局。背景干净简洁,聚焦于内容呈现。视觉上必须体现出从高到低的强烈层级落差感。 等级结构与视觉定义(严格执行以下五级): 第1级(最高层):夯 (Hāng) 调研填充标准:根据调研,该领域内目前公认的“版本之子”、具有统治级热度、无可争议的顶流产品/作品。 视觉表现:占据画面最上方或最大的版面模块。色调为极具爆发力的爆裂红与辉煌金,带有光晕或能量外溢的视觉特效。字体最大、最粗。模块内需展示调研到的代表性产品的名称或高质量图像,并配以极简的赞美短语(如“全网吹爆”、“神作”)。 第2级:顶级 调研填充标准:硬核实力派,虽然热度可能不及“夯”,但口碑极佳,是行家首选的优质项目。 视觉表现:位于第二层。色调为坚实、高级的燃烧橙与金属银。模块设计显得扎实、富有质感。展示代表性实力派产品。 第3级:人上人 调研填充标准:优越之选,品味在线,买了/看了绝对不亏的中坚力量,代表了一定的鉴赏力。 视觉表现:位于中层。色调为明亮、干净的柠檬黄与冷灰。设计风格现代、清爽。展示代表性优质中产产品。 第4级:NPC 调研填充标准:毫无记忆点的大众脸产品,凑数的工业流水线产物,无功无过,容易被遗忘,必须要写上具体的产品或品牌或者人名不要含糊其辞。 视觉表现:位于中下层。色调为平淡乏味的面包色/米色或纸板棕。模块设计显得普通、重复、缺乏个性。展示那些非常平庸的产品。 第5级(最底层):拉完了 调研填充标准:调研中发现的公认“避雷针”、“智商税”、灾难级失败产品或甚至不如没有的存在,必须要写上具体的产品或品牌或者人名不要含糊其辞。 视觉表现:挤在画面最底部或角落,视觉空间被压缩。色调为绝望黑、惨白,并带有明显的数字故障(Glitch)、破碎或腐烂的视觉效果。展示那些著名的“翻车”产品,并配以警示性短语(如“快逃”、“大冤种”)。

还有一个锐评无畏契约皮肤的

avatar for 歸藏(guizang.ai)
歸藏(guizang.ai)
Sun Dec 07 17:09:24
  • Previous
  • 1
  • More pages
  • 1342
  • 1343
  • 1344
  • More pages
  • 5634
  • Next