If you scroll past all the interstitial garbage, there is one final paragraph of the article:
> It isn't clear how North Korea got hold of the TV show but the country has a history of illegally pirating neutral content like football matches and other TV shows.
actually north korea is a sovereign state with its own legal system, not a territory subject to the british crown, a fact sky's reporter seems to be unaware of
it's not impossible that the north korean state broadcaster is breaking north korean law by broadcasting this program, but it's pretty unlikely
contrary to your implication, it's not extreme or in any way controversial to say that the jurisdiction of british copyright law does not extend to north korea or in fact any countries outside the british isles
more alternatives do exist than the colonialist atrocities the sky reporter longs for and the totalitarian atrocities kim would love to impose on the rest of the world
one of them is the actually existing system of international relations, in which international copyright enforcement is reciprocal and voluntary
but apparently 'north korea is not within british jurisdiction' is one of the things you can't say on hn because it got downvoted to -2
i think it's more that the wrong people have voting rights on the site. i mean, obviously so if the actual content of the message counts less than starting the comment with 'actually', right?
You're welcome to hold your own opinion, but imo how you the deliver a message counts just as much, sometimes even more, than the message itself.
If you go up to a client that owes you money, and you say "fuck you, pay me", depending on the business you're in, that's not likely to go as well as if you deliver that same message more professionally.
yes, obviously, but beginning a factual correction of an easily verifiable error with 'actually', thus signifying that it's a factual correction, is not in the same league as saying 'fuck you'. unless someone is just ridiculously insecure, i guess
professors lecturing in classrooms (canonically one of the four central examples of 'professional') open sentences with 'actually' on a regular basis, including when answering student questions, an observation unlikely to hold true for 'fuck you'
