![](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/d1dfc6ea-8cfc-49d6-b703-1454d36b30cf.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
I wouldn’t willingly live anyplace else.
Seer of the tapes! Knower of the episodes!
I wouldn’t willingly live anyplace else.
It will vary by state, but generally:
When only one of the two parties is unwilling to continue the employer-employee relationship, it is obvious who is the moving party. If employment was still available to the claimant and the claimant refused to continue working, then the claimant is the moving party. If the employer will not allow the claimant to continue work, even though the claimant wants to, then the employer is the moving party.
A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Not that SCOTUS is held to the same code of conduct that all other federal judges are held to, of course.
It doesn’t have to be addition. It could be a hash function, etc.
All participants select their own random whole number and publish it to the group. All participants add all the numbers together. The result is either odd or even (heads/tails) and everyone arrives at the same result independently.
Annual commemorative pastry observance
It’s the second largest multi-ethnic democracy on Earth.
Not only is it normalized, but it’s being weaponized. See, for example, the recent XZ backdoor which was equal parts hacking and a psi-op against the maintainer.
When in doubt, shut up.
The best way to make money in Vegas is to sell light bulbs.
This part:
a desperate attempt to keep young people from discussing Joes pet genocide where they can’t be censored by the us govt.
suggests that users are being censored by the US government. Doesn’t it?
That’s the opposite of what the court said.
Well, no. The courts struck down Trump’s Tiktok ban because he used an executive order that overstepped his authority.
Tiktok has been a subject of national security concerns since at least 2020.
I’ve seen that too. But they’re mistaken. “Censoring the internet” is not what this law does. That’s hyperbole not based on any reasonable interpretation of the actual law.
Don’t misunderstand me; this is not a good law. Nobody should be happy about it. But it is prudent, wise and perhaps even necessary. Refusing to acknowledge this while ignoring that actual 1st amendment concerns that this law will be challenged on does not help your argument.
They could use their advertising platform to manipulate US public opinion and elections. And, again, this isn’t to say it’s fine for domestic companies to do this. But that’s no argument against this law. In fact, I daresay the “gamer-to-far-right-radical pipeline” you identify is an example of this.
No, of course it’s not fine.
But if it’s not fine for domestic social media apps to do it, then it’s even worse for a foreign adversary to do it. Right?
Which Tittok users has the US government censored?
“If lawmakers want to rein in the harms of social-media platforms, targeting just one under the guise of national security ignores an entire industry predicated on surveillance capitalism. Like all popular platforms — including those that Meta and Google own — TikTok collects far too much user data. But banning a single platform will not address the privacy problem that’s rotting the core of the entire tech industry.
If domestic social media is collecting dangerous amounts of personal info about Americans, then foreign social media under who are subject to the laws of adversarial nation-states should be seriously concerning.
The matter of domestic social media will have to be addressed by a completely different law because it cannot be addressed by a law similar to this new one. People who bring up domestic social media in discussions of this law are completely missing the point.
He seems to be confusing “freeware”, which is basically a license for copyrighted work, with “public domain”, which is the absence of a copyright.