![](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/kMxT0MX57Q.jpg)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
Well, it happened in 2008 and 2020, so all we gotta do is wait for the economic crash in 2032 and we’ll be set!
He/Him or They/Them
Well, it happened in 2008 and 2020, so all we gotta do is wait for the economic crash in 2032 and we’ll be set!
Balatro is super good if you haven’t played it yet. It’s the passion project of one guy that feels more cohesive than some AAA games I’ve played
Sorry for the confusion, the battery part of my reply was related to forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy, which would have to involve some kind of battery unless it’s like poison or something, not related to the embryos in the freezer. There is no battery to those since they are not people.
From what I’ve previously read the agency that had the frozen embryos did not let them die off, they stored them properly in an industrial freezer kept at far below 0 temps. The issue was a person who didn’t work at the clinic snuck into the room with the fridge, opened it and then dropped the embryos and ran away (the article said the assumption was because the containers were so cold he got freeze-burned). There might be a case here that they didn’t do enough to stop the individual, or check on them often enough, I don’t know enough details to know, but it doesn’t sound like they just simply didn’t care or didn’t store them properly.
States have long had laws against forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy and those have stood up even before Roe died. It’s not usually on the level of murder/manslaughter, but at a minimum it’s been treated as a destruction of property. You don’t have to treat the embryo as a person to charge someone with aggravated battery or something similar.
The main issue here is the broadness of this ruling (besides the whole quoting the Bible thing) which equates embryos with full-human life. It won’t change a whole lot in this case, the families could have still sued for negligence or destruction of property, or any number of other civil remedies of this was denied, but now it’s laid the ground work to do much worse things in the future.
I am obligated by my work to offer this to customers when they buy an HP printer and I make it really clear that it’s a bad deal for most customers. There are some edge case examples, like a lady with a small business who always prints exactly like 3 pages a day. The other customers who agree to buy it are almost always the super old people who don’t want to have to come to the store to get more ink. I think it’s a shit program that should be scrapped entirely, but some people really don’t care if it’s a bad deal as long as they get the convenience. No different than 7-11 up charging shit because it’s easier to buy it at the market down the street than the Walmart a few miles down the road.
Maybe you missed the everyone in the previous post. It doesn’t matter if it’s two people in the country (it’s likely at least a million, that would be less than 0.3%), no one eligible should not be able to vote.
I think they meant “citizen*'s* arrest” as in “arrest of a citizen”. Not a citizen doing the arrest, as in “citizens arrest” .
There would be the same reaction if FB or Instagram or any other big platform was found to be allowing ads next to objectionable content (content the company in the ads would not want associated with their brand) AND that platform said that it wasn’t an issue, they won’t change policies to prevent it, and told them to go fuck themselves.
Twitter could absolutely have filters in place to prevent ads from showing up next to literal Nazi posts with a simple word list. The posts Media Matters showed were not subtle or underhanded, they were saying the quiet parts out loud. It would be trivial to prevent ads entirely from those posts, but then they’d lose ad space. It would mean less if this had happened with borderline posts or posts using coded language.
Facebook faced a ton of backlash for it and only stayed around because they are big enough that companies thought they’d lose more money by not offering their app then they’d lose by offering it. Also, as bad as Facebook moderation is, they were actively removing posts and banning users for things they said about J6 (odd to call it a protest but ok), which Parlor was refusing to do until after they were removed from the app stores. Parlor wanted to be all about free speech (hmmm just like Twitter now says they want to be) and refused to moderate the calls for violence until they were forced to by the big three, which led a lot of users to be angry at them and leave for other free speech platforms even less moderate than FB or Parlor.
So, are you saying you don’t have any evidence they colluded in the past, and no evidence that they colluded now, but are still believing it?
until they were able to get ads to show up
Yes, so they were able to get them to show up then. That means there are not mechanisms in place at Twitter that would prevent those ads from showing up next to Nazi posts. Which means the companies absolutely had a reason to pull ad funding. If you owned a company and were spending millions on ads, would you be ok knowing that it’s possible your ad shows up next to Nazi posts or Holocaust denial? Would it matter that it doesn’t happen most of the time? If it’s possible then Twitter has massively dropped the ball.
Where in the article do they say those ads “always” show up beside Nazi posts? They outlined their methods, and showed screenshots for proof. Even the CEO confirmed that those ads did show up next to Nazi posts, she just claimed it didn’t happen often. Media matters never claimed they happened all the time with every ad. If you had above a 5th grade reading level or had read the original article you’d know better.
Did any of those hearings end with a conclusion and solid evidence of collusion? How many of those companies or executives at those companies got convicted of market manipulation or conspiracy, or even charged?
Once again you are pointing to multiple independent companies, who are each other’s direct competitors, doing something at the same time and attributing that to collusion when there is no evidence for that at all. Is it that hard to imagine that multiple companies would decide at the same time to stop offering an app that harms their brand? Especially when those companies were getting heat because Parlor was used to organize the Insurrection and had many calls for violence? Also, are you now claiming that they previously colluded in support of Twitter but are now colluding against it?
You seem to have a tenuous grasp on…well, everything, but certainly reality. Companies do what they think will make them the most money. If all three thought that having Parlor on their app store, or ads on Twitter next to neonazis would make them less money than not doing those things, they would decide not to do them. It’s really really basic stuff.
By definition, a blockade is an act of war, regardless of who does it. I’m not sure why you’d think I wouldn’t call the US blockading some country and act of war (although I have a guess), just as much as I’d call Israel blockading Palestine as an act of war.
The reason other countries don’t respond to a US blockade with all-out war is because we get other countries to agree to the blockade first and then do it as a block, which means the blockaded country would have to be prepared to fight the US plus its allies. Given the relative size of the countries’ militaries involved, the blockaded ones usually decide not to fight.
Agreeing with the US’s decision to support Taiwan against China is not the same as support for all US military decisions, or even most of them.
That’s a pretty wild guess given how China keeps doing military drills involving amphibious landings and flying into Taiwanese airspace/going into Taiwanese waters. You wouldn’t practice amphibious landings to prepare a defense against the US, you’d do that to prepare for an invasion. China talks a lot about not using its military outside its borders, which has been mostly true, but they see Taiwan as within their borders so it doesn’t really tell us much.
If China wants to limit imports of goods from Taiwan they absolutely could, and it would be difficult for the US/Japan to respond to, but if by “restricting trade” you mean a blockade then that is an act of war that the US/Japan would respond to much more aggressively. Just like China would respond if we blockaded them.
I feel like I must be reading this wrong, but it seems like 4 are dead, not 3. Are they not counting the suspect as one of the dead?
It says the officer died, two victims inside died, and the suspect died. That would be four dead not three. Plus the first victim could have died or been close to it since we don’t know anything about her condition.
HP laser is still markedly worse than Brother laser. Much more expensive toner, harder to find and use off-brands, and (in my experience) much higher failure rates.
In general, toner is more robust than inkjet, but also HP is worse than Brother.
HP sucks donkey balls. Printer, computer, laptop, all-in-one, doesn’t matter. Friends don’t let friends by an HP.
That said, ET-2800 is an Epson brand printer, specifically the base-model “Eco-Tank” printer that uses bottles of ink instead of cartridges. HP makes a few under the “Super Tank” line. If that’s the right model number, that might help explain driver issues if you have an Epson printer being controlled by HP drivers.
If you plan on keeping it, make sure to set a calendar reminder or set up a task to print at least one color page every month to keep the ink from drying out in the print head. If you decide to replace it, consider a brother laser, especially the black-and-white only models. They are tanks
It’s already too late for him to do that. Some states are gonna start voting in the primaries in just a few months, and the cutoff date to be on the ballot is coming up fast. I think he’s positioning himself for a run in 2028.
Do you even know what that means? How exactly is reporting allegations made by others libel? You know you’d have to prove that the statements are untrue and (since he’s a public figure) you’d have to prove that the people making the claims knew they were untrue at the time right?
It’s the second half of your claim you’d have to support with evidence. Of course we help fund them, but it’s not so clear that they “benefit Hamas”".
If you read something like this article here, you’d note that of the 19 alleged ties to Hamas (of 34,000 workers btw) none have been found to be supported by evidence. Some of them are still going, and maybe they will show some kind of connection, but A) the time to believe that is when evidence is provided, not when the claim is made and B) I don’t really think cutting funding for an agency that does legitimate help to people currently starving and dying is justified just because 0.05% of employees have ties to Hamas. Would you be Ok condemning and demanding we cut funding to the IDF if we found 0.05% of their personnel had ties to radical Zionist movements calling for the eradication of Palestinians? Something tells me you wouldn’t.