All posts/comments by me are licensed by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, unless otherwise noted.
The article’s title does not match the content. I read it and it does not talk about how Musk controls Trump. It talks about retaliation for those organizing protests against Tesla.
Welcome to Lemmy, where people’s personal agendas/marketing shape the titles of their posts.
You need to make the connection that this is U.S. Government-sanctioned slavery.
Slavery existed in Africa for hundreds of years (unfortunately).
Its not a matter of knowing the history or not (I do), its a matter of using extreme dumb hyperbole (‘slave market’) in trying to make a point. Its bad conversation.
And it happen way too often here on Lemmy.
the US could reintroduce the slave market in Iran
Most (70%+) Iranians would welcome the U.S. getting rid of the Mullahs, freeing them.
That question/point is answered in the link that I supplied above.
There also a comment from a mod in there that you should read.
Amongst other things, yes.
Activision User Research Union-CWA is the first group of video game user researchers to form a union
So what exactly about their users do they research?
Ahh, ok. Thanks. Was focusing on the body/paragraph of the text.
🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀
I get the meme, but I don’t know how to apply it to this post.
Could someone elaborate?
Man, this current age of AI really sucks.
From the article …
GNOME sysadmin Bart Piotrowski shared on Mastodon that only about 3.2 percent of requests (2,690 out of 84,056) passed their challenge system, suggesting the vast majority of traffic was automated.
So what did you see?
They want to bomb Yemen, basically
And “hate having to bail out the EU again”.
Double check me on this, but I think they have a “-site:” parameter that you can use in your searches.
Lemmy is a lot of different inter-connected sites, most of which don’t even contain “Lemmy” in their name, making it a much more difficult ask.
A search engine could easily enough set up their own Lemmy server to search from. Same with Mastodon.
I notice you asked for an explanation and then only sort-of read the first sentence.
No, I read the whole thing, fully. I just disagreed with your analogy, thought it was a bad one, too verbose and obfuscating of the subject being talked about. Also it didn’t cover someone searching your belongings with/without your permission, the subject being talked about. Law officials have more legal leeway to detain you than they do to search your belongings without your permission, so your analogy doesn’t work (especially when you throw in beatings into it).
Also, didn’t think your last paragraph was legally accurate, but didn’t want to bother arguing the point, since ‘amendment > law > policy/rule’ is a well-known given. I’m aware of the difference. When I asked my original question, it was to confirm if the border enforcement people were actually honoring the 4th amendment, or not, whatever their thought processes were.
I did appreciate you taking the time to reply (and civilly at that) though, thank you. P.S. I hope the tone of my reply wasn’t too harsh, it wasn’t meant to be rude, just straightforward.
Consent in a situation like this is difficult to establish, to the point of it being pointless.
Hard disagree.
Did they ask him if they could search and he said yes, or no? Or did they just take his device away from him and did a search without his permission?
Consenting to a search, or have one mandated by a judge’s order, is one of the fundamental pillars of citizen rights and laws in this country.
Was it a legal or illegal search? That’s not a pointless question to ask.
I’m going to call b.s. on that one. I read the article. And so did others.
Edit: From the comment I initially replied to…
And how you replied to me replying to the above …
I’m talking about the body of the text of the article vs its title, the same as the person that I replied to. I don’t care about the ‘red herring’ assertion you are making.
And while we are at it, the article title doesn’t match the body of the article itself.
I get how you want to ‘Kill the Messenger’ and diminish my rep here, but don’t be so literal/pedantic, and goal post moving.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0