Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)K
Posts
6
Comments
560
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Their interpretation isn't "originalist" or "strict" at all. It's just what they want to say, at any given moment. History would be very different if both of your parents had to be US citizens. The president of the US is required to be a "natural born citizen"

    Of the 45[a] individuals who became president, there have been eight that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)

    For one, Donald Trump might not be president because his mother was born in Scotland.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-immigrant-mother

    For those (uninformed) Trump supporters who claim she was a citizen when little Donny was born, that's true but her immigration process was much easier than it is today. This is it, in its entirety:

    On May 2, MacLeod left Glasgow on board the RMS Transylvania arriving in New York City on May 11 (one day after her 18th birthday). She declared she intended to become a U.S. citizen and would be staying permanently in America.

    Though the 1940 census form filed by Mary Anne and her husband, Fred Trump, stated that she was a naturalized citizen, she did not actually become one until March 10, 1942.[1][6][7] However, there is no evidence that she violated any immigration laws prior to her naturalization, as she frequently traveled internationally and was afterwards able to re-enter the U.S.

    [She] became a naturalized citizen in March 1942

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anne_MacLeod_Trump

  • Uh, Android is the alternative to Apple's iOS. Android is much more customizable.

  • If they said "these fortunes are real and will come true" they would be liable for fraud.

    Microsoft's argument that they are not liable must include the idea that their Copilot AI is not expected to deliver true statements in its summaries. That's clearly not what the purpose of the summary is.

  • You made the comparison between one person and a million. I quote:

    We remember Eisenhower, not the millions who died

  • We do remember those people... there's a huge WWII memorial in DC and memorials around the country. The Korean War has a great memorial in DC too, great statues.

    Dwight Eisenhower apparently has a small memorial as well. I had to look it up to find it. The first review says:

    We just happened to find this memorial while waiting for our timed entry into the Air and Space Museum.

    So, who is remembered more?

  • Like I said, I'm not an expert but I think big drones that can take down a bridge aren't piloted by two dudes in a bush.

  • Ok then, fighter-bombers or more artillery. If the bridge is in range of Ukrainian drones, then the drone base station is in range of counter fire.

  • Plus, as soon as the cars can drive themselves people will stop needing Uber in many cases.

    No parking? Just tell your car to go park on a street 10 blocks away.

    Drunk? Car drives itself while you sleep.

    Going to the airport? Car drops you off and returns home. Car also picks you up when you are back.

    This is combined with the fact that people will do more disgusting things in an Uber without the driver there. If you have ever driven for Uber, you know that 10% of people are trying to eat or drink in the car. They are going to spill and it's going to end up like the back of a bus.

  • Well I'm not an expert, but it's possible to use cruise missiles and long range bombers to provide cover for the few days it might take to evacuate. Maybe they are busy blowing up apartment buildings and hospitals though.

  • Ukrainian forces were "striking pontoon bridges and engineering equipment in the western part of their operational zone

    These engineers have a shit job if the military is forcing them to work under fire. Usually you try to defend the less armed part of the military (medics, command, engineers, supply) because that's what really powers the organization. If you can't defend your weak spots, you are going to lose.

  • They were not that close, they just drove in from Belarus and dropped some paratroopers with no support. That's a good strategy for losing your best troops.

    They also didn't use a few days of bombing to soften up the targets. Ukraine was surprised but all of their equipment was intact. That's like number one in any attack plan.

    They basically underestimated the Ukrainians and thought they would just run away. Those paratroopers were very good but they are only scary to local police, not to a trained military. Without heavy support, they were sitting ducks at the airport.

  • I'm not sure I buy the pricing-people-out angle either tbh, we have a pretty rich market of MVNOs who act as an anchor on the MNO pricing, and it would look like anti-competitive market collision if suddenly the operating costs for these companies went up after a merger.

    Do you think that would change anything? After the merger it's hard to walk it back. People would scream about "losing jobs" or something.

    The point of a merger is to make more money, both through improved pricing power and through lower costs.

  • So you are against the Russian military invading Ukraine in 2014? And again in 2022? And Syria in 2015? And Georgia in 2008?

    Russia can end the fighting just by leaving Ukrainian territory. You are "against war", so why not advocate for that?

    Edit: just ignore this guy. His posts are mostly downvoted.

  • It's not just that. People fought duels over their honor in the past. We don't have duels anymore, so we shouldn't rely on a judge to recuse themselves.

    It is a founding concept of European law that no one should be a judge in their own case:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

  • Are they searching based on evidence (fair)?

    Do you really think that there's a bunch of children running drugs around so they need to be strip searched? Let me repeat that: do you think children are committing crimes right and left?

    The police searched them, so if there was "evidence" they would have been arrested. "Child drug gangs" would be all over the news. Since that didn't happen, we know that these children were targeted based on assumptions (probably race).

    Black children have a problem with people assuming they are older than they really are and treating them like adults. If you think there's a ton of "evidence" that literal children are committing a ton of crime, you're part of the problem.

  • The timing was clearly strategic. He didn't want to do it, but there's a reason why Kamala's campaign literally started calling Democratic representatives within hours.

  • So you're saying that a politician listened to members of his party and the voters, sidelining his own ambitions. And you have a problem with that?

  • I think in one sense it can be good. Sometimes it is counterproductive to downvote someone from 1 to 0. I think this would prevent that, as the first downvote is probably the most important one.

    But I agree that making any data public will allow everyone to be categorized easily. "This person dislikes this content and likes other content."

    Remember, you are giving this info to everyone. Mark Zuckerberg will be able to see what you like and dislike in all public votes.

  • Meaning they could be utter bullshit like a lot of what comes out of LLMs. Lemmy users.