Changing an official government website, while inconsequential as far as rights are concerned, signals something much more than just suppressing information.
It means they are actively taking steps to rewrite history. To change how people see the government. Because if the people in charge think so little to update the site, the people in charge have much more sinister plans than to just update the website.
The law exists only as much as it is enforced.
They are clearly saying they will not enforce habeas corpus.
A LOT of honey in grocery stores are actually syrup but due to capitalism, there really is no real way to tell for sure.
If you are allergic, but won't die, from having honey, you might be able to make a guide for those of us that actually want real honey but have trouble trusting asshole companies.
Contact an attorney to draft a trust where you all share equity at an amount you all agree to. The terms of the trust should indicate how someone sells their interest and what happens upon default, etc.
The trust buys the property and owns it. Ownership is managed through the trust.
The hardest part is qualifying for a loan. You're essentially operating as a business and most home loans are designed for people and couples.
EVEN IF a store was named "use these toys on fake dolls of children" (because this name would likely not even pass local laws but let's put that aside), the store can sell cookies and take MasterCard.
I'm going to play devil's advocate since the OOP is doing a terrible job of arguing their point.
If my brick and mortar store sold incest books, MasterCard could say, "We don't like how you sell this one book or category of books."
Like...fine. In which case they are being anticompetitive. The books aren't illegal. Distasteful, perhaps, but you don't see me complaining to MasterCard for processing bakery transactions, just because I hate gluten.
Republicans and conservatives are about oppression.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Anti-abortion laws are about punishing "sluts". Their abortions are allowed because something bad happened to them. Sluts deserve it because they should have just squeezed an aspirin between their legs.
Only one party cares about hypocrisy and it's not the Republicans.
Buying porn with money is fully legal. Buying a porn magazine at a brick and mortar store is fully legal. Buying fucking sex toys online and at a brick and mortar store is fully legal.
MasterCard banning a specific category of goods because a small, yet vocal, group of people think they shouldn't exist is not only absolutely stupid but anticompetitive.
If MasterCard doesn't have control over the NSFW bans, there is an easy way to solve this:
Announce that they are explicitly allowing NSFW purchases.
If they won't do that, then one of two things are true:
MasterCard doesn't have control over its process, to which point investors should question what value they provide
MasterCard is lying and they do have control over its processes, to which point merchants and consumers should question how much they can trust a company that will ban certain categories of purchases
I'm in the job hunt and man....the circle jerk around AI is just..... inescapable.
I don't get it. By the time you write "a good prompt" I will have written something usable and passable. The level of effort to debug whatever the prompt gave me vs my code is, let's say, roughly the same.
So...what time am I saving?
The only thing this helps is people who can't code. And we just assume that it's passable code only because it works.
Hell I'm at a point of commit very wrong code to GitHub under an MIT license just to start poisoning Copilot.
It's not complicated when you factor in that tax payers are paying for the incentives. And they rarely work out for the local residents.
When Amazon was flirting with building their second headquarters for AWS, a small number of cities tried to band together and require a floor amount for reinvestment into the city. Amazon, being one of the richest companies in the world, said, "Nah...well just cancel the building."
These companies want to socialize the cost of their buildings but privatize the profits those buildings create.
Building anything like this is seen as a jobs creator. Data center companies then pass the proposal around to municipalities and ask them who want jobs. These places then bend over backwards to offer tax incentives, fast permitting, etc. with no regard to whether their location can actually support the building.
So of course they get built in the most corrupt places.
Part 55