If you are experiencing downtime or have trouble posting, that is because a DDoS attack is underway. Our team is working on mitigating the issue. もしダウンタイムを経験していたり、投稿に問題があれば、それはDDoS攻撃が行われているためです。私たちのチームは問題の緩和に取り組んでいます。 大変ご不便をお掛けしておりますが今後ともよろしくお願いいたします。
-- English -- The user-participation-based "Acorn System" was originally developed as an anti-troll measure, but in recent years, large-scale trolling has subsided. On the other hand, there have been increasing cases of malicious hunters misusing the cannon feature indiscriminately. In light of these circumstances, we have decided to introduce a new feature called the "Acorn Gate".
By default, the "Acorn Gate" setting is set to "false", meaning that posting restrictions and similar functions will be suspended. The cannon feature itself remains active; however, its effect will now be limited to marking the targeted post with a "臭" icon, without imposing any posting bans or other penalties.
If you wish to keep all functions enabled, please add the following line to the board’s SETTING.TXT file: BBS_ACORN_GATE=force
Adding the following line will instead permanently disable all acorn-related functions on that board: BBS_ACORN_GATE=false
If large-scale trolling resumes in the future, the "Acorn Gate" setting will be switched to "true", and the Acorn System will automatically be reactivated across all boards where it is available.
We sincerely appreciate your continued cooperation in maintaining a safe and comfortable environment for all users.
The provision countered a dangerous incentive created by an early court ruling. One court had held a company responsible for a user’s defamatory statement partly because it had tried to moderate offensive material. The ruling suggested that a service could reduce its legal exposure by moderating nothing. Congress responded by protecting platforms that hosted user-generated content while allowing them to remove objectionable material without becoming responsible for every remaining post. That protection helped make the modern internet possible. Video-sharing sites, forums, reference works, and social networks could host contributions from millions without reviewing every sentence. Without protection from intermediary liability, fewer organizations would likely have been willing to provide spaces for public expression. Yet courts have sometimes interpreted Section 230 broadly enough to shield companies in troubling cases involving harassment, impersonation, and other harms that platforms could reasonably have anticipated. Critics argue that this protection has allowed some companies to avoid responsibility even when their own practices appeared negligent.
New lawsuits seek to bypass that obstacle by focusing on product design. Plaintiffs point to infinite scrolling, constant notifications, personalized recommendations, and publicly displayed popularity metrics. Their claim is not simply that harmful material appeared online. It is that companies created features that encouraged compulsive use and then failed to respond adequately as warning signs accumulated. Several cases involving young users illustrate this strategy. In California, a plaintiff argued that image-centered platforms contributed to depression, anxiety, and severe dissatisfaction with her body. In Massachusetts, judges allowed claims to proceed because the alleged harm arose from Meta’s own design choices rather than from third-party speech. New Mexico has accused Meta of misleading consumers about safety and failing to protect minors from sexual solicitation. These cases alarm the industry because they resemble earlier litigation against tobacco companies. Cigarette manufacturers faced enormous liability not merely because individuals chose to smoke, but because the companies understood the risks, fostered addiction, and misled the public. Social media firms fear that private claims could eventually be followed by state actions seeking reimbursement for mental-health costs.
The comparison, however, has limits. The relationship between smoking and serious disease is exceptionally strong. The evidence linking social media use to psychological harm is far less settled. One major study of more than 350,000 adolescents examined digital technology use, a category broader than social media alone, and found that it explained no more than about 0.4 percent of the variation in well-being. Later research suggests that adolescents at certain developmental stages may be more vulnerable. The effects are therefore unlikely to be uniform. Causation is equally difficult to establish. Heavy use may worsen emotional problems, but young people who are already lonely, depressed, bullied, or neglected may also spend more time online. Social media may be a cause, a symptom, or both. The kind of activity matters as well. Passively comparing oneself with idealized images is not equivalent to forming friendships, maintaining supportive relationships, or finding information unavailable at home or school. Scientific uncertainty does not justify corporate inaction. Companies can reasonably be required to investigate reports of exploitation, give qualified researchers access to data, and test whether particular features encourage compulsive use. Courts may also examine whether executives concealed risks or put revenue ahead of affordable safety measures.
Sweeping restrictions deserve equal scrutiny. Banning teenagers from major platforms may reduce some dangers, but it may also isolate vulnerable users or push them toward less visible services. Age-verification systems can threaten privacy, while untested safety products may create new markets without solving the underlying problem. Governments should evaluate the effects of their interventions rather than assume that any restriction is automatically protective. The central challenge is to separate protection for online speech from immunity for corporate conduct. Section 230 remains valuable because open discussion cannot flourish if every platform faces ruinous liability for every statement posted by a user. But that principle does not require courts to excuse negligent design, deceptive safety claims, or indifference to child exploitation. Regulation should therefore target demonstrable corporate misconduct without undermining the legal protections on which open online expression depends. Social media is neither harmless nor uniformly destructive. Its effects vary across users, activities, and circumstances. Sound policy will require better evidence, carefully tested remedies, and a willingness to revise rules when unintended consequences become clear.
Every country depends on more than laws, elections, and economic institutions. It also needs a shared understanding of how it came into being, what principles it claims to defend, and why people of different backgrounds should continue to regard themselves as members of the same political community. In the United States, that task has become increasingly difficult. Americans still argue intensely about history, but public institutions have often responded not by constructing a fuller national story but by avoiding the subject. For much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, students learned a patriotic account of the American past. The United States was presented as an experiment in liberty, equality, and self-government. Because the nation was said to rest on universal ideals rather than common ancestry, immigrants could become American by accepting its political creed. This story contained an important truth. The language of equal rights later gave abolitionists, suffragists, civil-rights activists, and other reformers a vocabulary with which to challenge injustice. Yet the old account also concealed too much. It praised democracy while minimizing slavery, racial violence, the seizure of Native land, the subordination of women, and the exclusion of many immigrants. Beginning in the 1960s, historians recovered these neglected experiences. Their work showed that freedom had usually expanded because excluded groups organized, protested, sued, voted, and sometimes died to obtain rights that others already possessed.
The problem was not with this scholarship itself. It was that too few historians attempted to connect its findings to a broader account of the nation. Research became increasingly specialized, while comprehensive surveys of American development grew less common. Readers learned more about particular communities but were not always shown how these histories intersected, influenced one another, and shaped the country as a whole. Political disputes made the problem harder. In the 1990s, attempts to establish national history standards collapsed after critics argued that the proposed curriculum emphasized oppression more than achievement. A decade later, federal reforms judged schools mainly through tests in reading and mathematics. Because performance in history had fewer consequences for school rankings, many districts reduced the time devoted to social studies. The education system proved better at measuring performance in tested subjects than at confronting disagreements over what students should learn about the national past. Three broad approaches now compete to explain American history. The first treats the United States as an unfinished democratic project. It recognizes the power of the founding ideals while documenting the country’s repeated failure to honor them. From this perspective, American history is a continuing struggle to extend rights and protections once reserved mainly for white men.
A second approach, influential among parts of the left, places conquest, slavery, racial hierarchy, and economic domination near the center of the story. It argues that these systems were not minor departures from American principles but forces that helped create the nation. Work in this tradition has helped bring facts concealed by older histories into public debate. In its most rigid form, however, it can make reform appear futile and leave citizens with little reason to believe that the country has achieved anything worth preserving. A third approach, common on the nationalist right, treats the founding era with near reverence. It portrays slavery and exclusion as regrettable violations of an otherwise pure constitutional tradition. Some of its advocates seek to remove critical accounts of injustice from museums and school curricula while reshaping public historical displays to emphasize national achievement. Yet a patriotism that requires citizens to ignore documented wrongdoing is unlikely to survive serious historical examination. These two extremes do not reach the same conclusion, and their political aims and practical effects differ considerably. Both sometimes begin, however, with the belief that inherited American identity has been deeply shaped by whiteness, although they draw sharply different conclusions from that history. Some on the radical left invoke it to challenge demands that newcomers assimilate into a national culture they regard as compromised. Nationalists on the right draw the opposite political conclusion, treating immigration as a threat to an inherited culture that they wish to preserve. One side may regard the national tradition as irredeemably exclusionary; the other may restrict who is entitled to claim it. Although these positions differ in purpose and effect, both can narrow the civic principle that people of many origins may become American by participating in a common political life.
A stronger national story would not require agreement on every historical judgment. It would explain that voting rights were unusually widespread among white men in the early republic while women, enslaved people, Native Americans, and many others remained excluded. It would show that the language of equality belonged not only to presidents and judges but also to those who challenged them. Frederick Douglass, suffragists, the marchers at Selma, and immigrant reformers did not merely expose the gap between American ideals and American practice. They demanded that the country honor those ideals more fully. Without such a story, the public becomes vulnerable to slogans. When schools fail to explain how the nation changed, political movements and simplified historical accounts fill the gap. Some interpretations reduce the country’s past to the injustices present at its founding. Political authorities, meanwhile, may suppress evidence that admired leaders committed grave wrongs. These acts are not identical: one simplifies history through interpretation, while the other may use institutional power to restrict what citizens are allowed to learn. Both, however, replace historical complexity with political certainty. The United States needs neither unquestioning patriotism nor a national story that offers nothing but guilt. It needs citizens who care enough about the country to examine its failures and understand its ideals well enough to recognize when they are betrayed. The American past is neither a sacred legend nor a catalog of crimes. It is an unfinished argument about who belongs, what freedom requires, and whether a diverse people can govern themselves together.
I'm a boy. I can speak English. Therefore,I look down any person. I wanna be a BOSS. I'm different from you who can't speak English. And then I regard you as evil!
_n_ // |ヽ\ ┏─┐/ / | ヽ \ ┃千│⌒⌒⌒‖⌒⌒⌒ ┃利│ ‖ ┃休│ ‖ ┠─┘ [二] ┃ *ロ==(´・ω・)<eat eggs ┃/ (::) ( >oy>o\ /日[二]と__)*{三}\  ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ Hey!!! All you NEETs, nerds, YouTube link spammers, pedophiles, neo-Nazis, Yukorin enthusiasts, Nanako SOS admirers, Part-Time-Preachers, Diplomats' spoiled sons, losers who can't remember Kanji characters, Big-boobs fans, Weeaboo from around the world, learners of Japanese who are too lazy to update their Japanese blogs very often, cunning linguists, stupid fan girls of Johnny's Boys, Touhou pirates, and that electrical super-gay who suffers from mental disease - This is your thread! Let's hope the Internet-addicted housewife will come back soon!
I came across a post on Threads by a suspicious Iranian girl that seemed like propaganda. So, I asked her how many people can connect to the internet and about the massacre against the protesters. I'm eager to hear her response.
Child's English is the best too much. I feel like that it is speeder and it is aiming for the best speed than adults English. And then I wrote ASAP without fixing by AI.
>>116 I took the TOEIC S&W about two years ago. I recommend that you practice explaining the content of pictures. I had trouble with it because I had not studied for the exam. It's hard for me to explain even in Japanese. By the way, there is enough time to solve. It's different from TOEIC L&R.
>>118 Communists are the ones who should be banned from participating in the ceremonies. Because they have made noises even during silent prayer since long ago before Takaichi became the prime minister. The officials and most participants have kept asking for silence. Why can't they behave according to common sense?
In addition, you should use the word 'because'. Opinions without reasons are just noisy.
■■■最終まとめ■■■ (Geminiに質問) 第二文型の補語に、不定詞を使うのが自然か、それとも動名詞を使うのが自然かという問題があります。 1. My goal is to become a pilot. 2. My hobby is collecting stamps. 上記の違いを説明する場合、どちらの説明が理解しやすいですか?
★大家理論 「意図」「目標」なら不定詞、「経験済みのこと」なら動名詞を使う。
※大家理論では、 じゃあ、「My job is to train new staff.」は、現在その仕事に従事している場合は使えないのか? じゃあ、「My hobby is collecting stamps」は、切手を集める意図がないのか? という疑問が、学習者に生じます。
When someone claims to be a descendant of samurai—whether the claim is true or a fabrication—it means they feel honor and pride in carrying the blood of ancestors who were killers. 誰かが侍の末裔だと主張する場合――それが事実であれ作り話であれ――そのことは、人を殺める者であった先祖の血を引いていることに、その人が名誉や誇りを感じていることを意味します。
A rising stock price, however, is not a precise measure of either social value or an executive’s contribution. It reflects expectations about future revenue, technological progress, investor enthusiasm, and speculative demand. When SpaceX went public, Musk did not receive a trillion dollars in cash. Most of the increase in his estimated fortune reflected the higher market value of shares he already owned, a value that could fall as rapidly as it had risen. The mythology surrounding Musk also obscures the institutional foundations of SpaceX’s success. The company drew on thousands of employees, private capital, existing launch facilities, publicly funded research, and a government prepared to purchase commercial space services. NASA served as an anchor customer, supplied technical expertise and infrastructure, and financed development through milestone-based agreements and fixed-price contracts. None of this reduces SpaceX to a product of government policy. Established aerospace contractors had access to public contracts and technical knowledge without matching SpaceX’s development speed or reductions in launch costs. Musk and his employees combined rapid testing, vertical integration, and a willingness to tolerate repeated failure in ways older contractors had not. SpaceX emerged from an interaction between public capacity and private initiative.
The strongest criticism of extreme wealth therefore concerns the conversion of economic power into political influence. Musk controls companies involved in space transportation, satellite communications, artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, electric vehicles, and digital media. Governments increasingly depend on some of them for strategically important services. That dependence can allow one corporate owner’s decisions to affect military communications, public debate, national infrastructure, and government policy. Consumer choice does not resolve this problem. Market success may show that customers value a company’s products and investors value its prospects; it does not confer democratic legitimacy on its owner. A corporation can provide indispensable services while its ownership structure gives one individual influence over elections, regulation, information flows, and public institutions far beyond that available to ordinary citizens. Musk’s other ventures require the same distinction between technological promise and institutional risk. Tesla accelerated the adoption of electric vehicles and forced established manufacturers to revise their strategies. Neuralink is conducting early clinical research into whether people with severe paralysis can control computers and assistive devices through brain signals. These ventures may produce significant benefits, but they also require scrutiny of product and medical-device safety, research ethics, patient privacy, workplace conditions, and corporate governance.
Public policy should address these questions directly. Antitrust authorities should investigate exclusionary conduct by companies controlling essential infrastructure. Workers and research participants require effective legal protection. Government procurement should disclose potential conflicts of interest and include contingency plans to reduce dependence on a single supplier. Tax policy should be debated in terms of revenue, incentives, fairness, and administrative feasibility rather than portrayed as either punishment for achievement or a complete remedy for inequality. Arguments made in Musk’s defense require the same discipline. Reusable rockets are an important technological accomplishment, but not every increase in Musk’s net worth represents equivalent social progress. Conversely, concern about concentrated wealth does not by itself show that Musk acquired his fortune illegitimately, nor does it establish that reducing his wealth would remedy high living costs or stagnant wages. Musk’s fortune brings several distinct questions together. SpaceX has created genuine technological and economic value. Musk did not create that value alone or without public support. The company’s achievements do not determine the appropriate tax rate, the distribution of corporate rewards, or the acceptable limits of its owner’s political influence.
The central issue is not whether Musk should be admired or condemned. It is whether democratic institutions can benefit from enterprises of extraordinary scale without becoming dependent on one owner’s judgment. SpaceX shows what concentrated private ambition can accomplish. Musk’s expanding power shows why democratic institutions must remain capable of constraining any individual.
だいじろー先生もご存じだとは思うけど、"The Thin Blue Line"っていうMr.ビーンで有名なローワン·アトキンソン氏が出てるイギリスのTVドラマがあって、youtubeで短編が見れるから見てるんだけど、ビーンと違ってセリフがちゃんとあるからローワン氏の綺麗なブリティッシュアクセントが聞けてお手本にしてる
It seems the counselor is having trouble with prank calls.
We receive a lot of inquiries about free trial lessons.
Both sentences are natural, but the following versions are the best choices:
The counselor seems to be having trouble with prank calls.
This is slightly more concise and natural than:
It seems the counselor is having trouble with prank calls.
Both are grammatically correct, but The counselor seems to... places the counselor directly in the subject position and sounds smoother.
We receive many inquiries about our free trial lessons.
Here, receive many inquiries is appropriate because both receive and many sound relatively formal. This version would work well in a business context, an announcement, or written communication.
For everyday conversation, a more natural alternative is:
We get a lot of inquiries about our free trial lessons.
Therefore:
receive many inquiries — more formal and professional
get a lot of inquiries — more conversational
receive a lot of inquiries — also correct, but slightly mixes formal and conversational styles
The most polished pair is:
The counselor seems to be having trouble with prank calls.
We receive many inquiries about our free trial lessons.
177 名前:名無しさん@英語勉強中 2026/06/18(木) 15:32:44.42
フィリピン人教師だなw
178 名前:名無しさん@英語勉強中 2026/06/19(金) 05:52:36.99
The counselor is completely exhausted. I don't know why.
179 名前:名無しさん@英語勉強中 2026/06/20(土) 05:57:09.54
It seems that the number of reservations for trial lessons is gradually increasing.
180 名前:名無しさん@英語勉強中 2026/06/21(日) 05:57:05.58
The children who participate in the trial lesson are all nervous, but they quickly get used to it.
181 名前:名無しさん@英語勉強中 2026/06/21(日) 20:47:10.44
永野芽郁をもう一度イメージキャラクターに
182 名前:名無しさん@英語勉強中 2026/06/22(月) 05:58:41.17
The trial lesson is free, so please feel free to join us.
183 名前:名無しさん@英語勉強中 2026/06/23(火) 05:59:22.68
Sometimes I answer the phone on behalf of the counselor.
184 名前:名無しさん@英語勉強中 2026/06/24(水) 06:04:20.99
I recommend group lessons for beginners.
185 名前:名無しさん@英語勉強中 2026/06/25(木) 07:21:36.20
I believe that physical contact with the counselor is also important.
Article 6. The Emperor shall appoint the Prime Minister as designated by the Diet. The Emperor shall appoint the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court as designated by the Cabinet.
Article 88. All property of the Imperial Household shall belong to the State. All expenses of the Imperial Household shall be appropriated by the Diet in the budget.
Article 44. The qualifications of members of both Houses and their electors shall be fixed by law. However, there shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, sex, social status, family origin, education, property or income.
Article 50. Except in cases provided by law, members of both Houses shall be exempt from apprehension while the Diet is in session, and any members apprehended before the opening of the session shall be freed during the term of the session upon demand of the House.