States rights was never really an ideal (in general, if it’s wrong to allow something in one state, it’d be wrong to allow it in the rest, after all). It was just a thing to bring out whenever the federal government disagreed with something they wanted but some states didn’t. But now that they control the federal government, it becomes a liability, so they drop it.
The context of who does a thing and how they’d be likely to do it matters; a surgeon cutting into someone with a scalpel can help heal them, but an untrained idiot with the same scalpel is likely to make the situation even worse than if the surgery hadn’t even been tried.
Though I don’t agree with the deportation bit, I view unwilling deportation as cruel, and taking his obscene pile of wealth away would also remove most of his ability to negatively effect society anyway (and if it didn’t, then him being physically in a different country probably wouldn’t help much either, or else would be pushing the problem onto them instead of solving it.)
To be fair, indigenous in this sort of context usually refers to a colonial state where the ruling group is different from the one there before a colonial empire got there. I don’t usually see it used for populations that haven’t been subject to conquest and occupation like that within the last millenia or so, even if it could technically fit, it’d be a bit redundant.
Though if the history of, say, Ireland is any indication, historically when white Europeans end up in that kind of position they haven’t faired much better.
He isn’t the only winner of that prize to be involved in war crimes, to be fair.
It’s not laid out like Lemmy is, because Lemmy is basically the fediverse version of Reddit, while Mastodon is more the fediverse version of Twitter. I’m not very good at using that format myself so I can’t offer much advice, but from what I’ve seen, what your feed is like depends a lot on what instance you join, to a much larger extent than on Lemmy (it’s a much bigger userbase than lemmy as well to my knowledge). I dont know of any equivalent to communities per se, you have to join an instance that is good for the kinds of things you’re looking for, and follow users that post or interact with that content. I think a favorite is more like a like, and reblogging is more like reposting for one’s followers and imstance to see too.
If that were true, Disney and a number of other large companies would not exist.
I would imagine the Iranian government or an affiliated organization like that would have better access to the internet at the moment than the average citizen. A social media influence campaign doesn’t even have to be physically based within the country running it, technically. I’m not saying whether Iran is or isn’t running bots or to what extent, because I don’t know that, but I would think that, given that their enemies are doing it, it would make quite a lot of sense for them to do so as well.
I’m not sure that modern political terminology, especially with regards to something like socialism, really fits someone who predates even the invention of those words. Sure, you can find similarities, but you can’t always expect consistency with it in all their positions if the person in question got to those positions in a very different manner.
I’ve been pretty happy with how the instance I use has been run thus far, but it is focused around furries, so it won’t be something most people outside that subculture like I expect. Still, the fandom is big enough that someone in it looking for an instance might look at this thread, so I mention it anyway.
The issue I can see with that model is that, depending on how exactly it is implemented, it might end up spilling into places that involve people who were doing nothing unreasonable. For example, suppose a criminal makes a pipe gun, or a 3-d printed one, and uses that in a crime. If we’re always looking down the chain, do we also hold responsible whoever sold them the pipes, or the printer, or other machining tools? The easy enough answer is to except steps that don’t usually have to do with firearms I suppose (where the people involved would not generally have reason to expect the purchaser is using what they buy for those purposes), but in taking that obvious step, one would create a situation where acquiring guns through less traceable and safe means becomes easier than the ways that can be tracked, which is rarely a good thing if you want rules to actually be followed.
Personally, I think that, rather than the guns themselves, the focus of gun control measures should be on the ammunition they fire. It doesn’t last as long as a gun potentially can, and is disposable, meaning that the large number of guns already in circulation poses less of an issue, and is harder to manufacture at home due to the requirement for explosive chemicals. Further, most “legitimate” civilian uses for a gun either don’t require all that much of it (like hunting), or can be done in a centralized location that can monitor use (like sport target shooting at a professionally run shooting range).
What I would do, is put a very restrictive limit on how much ammunition a given person may purchase in a given year, and only allow exceptions to that limit if the person can provide proof that an equivalent amount of their existing allotment has been fired, returns old ammunition for exchange, or purchases the extra at a licensed range that as a condition of the license must monitor patrons and ensure those bullets are either fired or refunded before the shooter leaves.
I don’t really even have an age range I guess, I’ve never met anyone I was interested in dating.
Literally just imagining things in your head out of boredom does something similar, and that’s something that’s just gonna happen if you sit idle.
Brains need stimulation to develop and continue to function properly, as creatures with unusually powerful brains, humans benefit from, even need, quite a lot of such mental stimulation. There’s a reason we enjoy and put so much effort into entertaining ourselves, compared to most other animals. Working through imagined scenarios is no more unhealthy for us than exercising our muscles to keep them fit is.
I imagine that Google, Facebook, and other such companies would agree
Ron DeSantis isn’t a lemmy mod, to my knowledge.
To be fair, potentially addictive or not, I wouldn’t support a ban on social media either. The practical requirements needed to effectively restrict access to information in the modern age (both porn and social media being examples of information) are such that I generally view the cure as worse than the disease, so to speak, and view the least bad option as being to just give up on legal restrictions and just deal with the consequences instead. Addiction is harmful, but most consumers of such information aren’t harmed by it, and restriction inherently requires monitoring and removing internet anonymity to a degree that I find unacceptable.
Does the rule in question even apply to end users? All I had heard of it was that it put some kind of requirement on the website itself to identify people, which a person seeking out a noncompliant or foreign website presumably wouldn’t be the one violating?
Roko’s Basilisk is just pascal’s wager but with AI.
presumably well thought out business decisions arent made spontaneously out of rage from a twitter fight.
The dragon capsule worked though? You may be thinking of starliner, which is Boeing.
I always just look at the cable/device and the port to see which half of the connector is empty and which has that plastic bit