TWeaK

It baffles me that Trump thinks it’s a good idea to mess with the school that most lawyers come from.

Nominally EU voltage is 230V, and may be 240V. In fact, it can be as high as 230V +10% = 253V. Higher voltage means more power for a given current, so nominally it’s 16A x 230V = 3.68kW, but you could have say 16A x 250V = 4.0kW.

If your sauna is 400V then it sounds like you’ll be 230V (400V / sqrt(3) = 230). But the voltage can also be 230V -6% = 216V, so 220V is within scope.

But yeah, standard voltages in the EU are either 230V/400V or 240V/415V. They’ve been harmogenised, but if you look at the numbers you’ll see the trick - 230V +10% is roughly the same as 240V +6%. So the range is 230V-6% and 240V+6%.

You’ve got a 3 phase connection though so you might find you’ve got different single phase breakers on different phases (eg lights on one phase, sockets on another), with slightly different voltages for each one.

Linktree is a social media site that gives you a simple web page with all your links to your actual social media sites. This way, you can provide one link to your fans, taking up less space in a profile, then fans can pick and choose to follow on whichever services they prefer.

Usually, it’ll be something like instagram, onlyfans, fansly; maybe some others like snapchat or kik. I think sometimes music artists use Linktree sites too, ie completely SFW, but primarily they exist for NSFW content creators.

I think it was on a podcast or something, but someone somewhere once said that people/aliens in the future might look back on our civilisation and assume so much about us from social media bots. They might think that we go around greeting each other going “Link in bio” like Vulcans say “Live long and prosper”.

Your reply is very well written and on the whole I agree. The one thing I would say is that I am not simply dismissing the mainstream usage of the word, but pointing out its misuse as intentional deception given that the usage contradicts what the word describes. I aim to point out that the word is actively being used for propaganda, and encourage others to associate it as such.

Solution: wait a few months and release it anonymously, while claiming it was found elsewhere.

If you prevent them from leaving at any point you invalidate the accusation of trespass.

They had no requirement to identify themselves to campus Public Safety Officers. PSO’s are not police. Locking them in the building is clearly unlawful detainment, and must invalidate any trespass charge as they were prevented from leaving (to be guilty of trespass you must first be notified and then remain in spite of being allowed to leave). Reasonable force is aboslutely an appropriate response to unlawful detainment.

They were told to leave or else they would be trespassing, yet they were prevented from leaving. If you are unlawfully being detained then reasonable force is appropriate to try and leave.

Under these auspices, all direct action that the capitalist system wants to crush is, will, and has been labelled terrorism.

Fun fact that runs parallel to your point: it’s not terrorism if you only destroy property.

Terrorism is defined as using violence (or the threat of violence), against civilians, in pursuit of a political goal. All 3 requirements must be met for it to be terrorism: violence, civilians, politics.

Burning down a Tesla dealership is thus not terrorism. It is violent, and it’s definitely political, but the target is not civilians but property. In a similar manner, the destruction of the NordStream pipeline was also not terrorism, by definition.

On the flipside, you can argue that some things politicians do are terrorism - if you remove someone’s disability benefits that could cause them tangible harm, and thus could be considered violence, in which case a politician attacking someone’s benefits would be committing terrorism against the benefit recipients. It’s also plain to see that invading a country, slaughtering a bunch of people, and bringing some back as hostages is terrorism; but so is raising entire cities and levelling buildings full of civilians.

Terrorism has many different flavours under its definition, yet so many people just have a vague idea of what terrorism is in their minds that doesn’t hold any rationality.

You can’t accuse someone of trespassing if you prevent them from leaving. No one is required to identify themselves to security.

Trespassing requires you to be notified that you shouldn’t be there. Without notice, there is no trespassing. After giving notice, trespassing only occurs if they remain on the property in spite of being notified they’re not allowed to be there. By preventing them from leaving, you are preventing them from satisfying your requirement for them not to be there, and thus undermining any trespassing charge.

Even if they were trespassing, none of that justifies being assaulted by police officers.

In terms of how a sane and civilized society would handle this, well for starters it wouldn’t even get to this point - a sane and civilized society does not support genocide. However their argument is that a sane and civilized society would view the requests as reasonable regardless, they’re not saying that such a society would give in to their demands because of the way they were protesting.

Maybe you could try making an intelligent comment yourself, before you criticise others?

Fun fact: trespassing isn’t even a crime everywhere, not on its own. Also, trespassing doesn’t occur automatically, in a nutshell you have to be notified and then remain on the property in spite of notice - this is why No Trespassing signs are a thing, they serve as notice.

Here, the students had every right to be there so were only trespassing after they were told to leave but remained. You’re absolutely right that they should expect to be arrested after this point. However, they should not expect nor do they deserve to be assaulted by police acting unlawfully (yet apparently shielded by the legal system).

Peaceful does not mean lawful. You can peacefully break the law.

The law is not always right - that is why it has the facility to be changed - and when laws are wrong it is a good citizen’s duty to break them, as that is the first step to changing them.

I don’t think it’s you being paranoid, however at the same time your husband is perhaps more on the front line of things, so should have a better idea.

I would say that as a journeyman lineman he’ll be pretty decently qualified and probably wouldn’t have as hard a time finding work abroad. It might be a tough sell with lower salaries on paper, but you often find that the standard of living improves and makes it more than worthwhile.

I just want to add something right here:

Retirement was pushed to the age of 64 under his name

Macron did this unilaterally by twisting an emergency constitutional power so that he could bypass a vote from the Assembly/Senate.

They’ve already instructed US cybersecurity agencies to stop reporting on Russian threats.

Not only that, the VOA literally has its own law requiring it to be impartial and protecting it from direct interference by the US government.

VOICE OF AMERICA BROADCASTS

Sec. 206. Title V of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 is amended by adding the following new section:

Sec. 503. The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts:

1. VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.

2. VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.

3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies. (Public Law 94-350)

• https://www.usagm.gov/who-we-are/mission/
• https://www.usagm.gov/who-we-are/oversight/legislation/voa-charter/
• https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/94/350.pdf

The point is they’re supposed to at least keep up the pretext of not being propaganda, and this is done by being critical when permitted. Trump doesn’t want them to be critical of him at all, which goes against their mandate from Congress.

Elon Musk managed to more or less keep up the appearance of being smart for a long while, up to when he called that diver a pedo.