negidius

7 ms·

1.
by negidius 2y ago
No he didn't. There is literally no evidence he ever tried to hire a hitman or hurt anyone in any way.
2.
by negidius 2y ago
I'm not a man, and I agree with scotty79. We are all different as individuals, and gender is pretty mush meaningless. Knowing that someone is a man, woman, non-binary, etc. might allow me to guess some things about them (if I also know
3.
by negidius 3y ago
What makes you think it's rare? The Institute for Justice says that: > In 2018 alone, 42 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. departments of Justice and the Treasury forfeited over $3 billion. https://ij.org&#x2
4.
by negidius 3y ago
12 or 13 employees in an organization being accused of terrorism or war crimes doesn't necessarily mean the organization is complicit in those acts, or could have foreseen the situation. This is especially the case in a region where su
5.
by negidius 3y ago
Sorry, that should have been 0.1%. The claim about 10% doesn't seem to say much. What does it mean exactly for someone to be a "Hamas/PIJ operative"? Has UNRWA been told who these people are and what they have done? I su
6.
by negidius 3y ago
Gaza is a ghetto controlled by a genocidal group at war with another genocidal group. It's an active war zone. It's not comparable to Silicon Valley. How does the 0.001% of employees being accused of involvement in the October 7 a
7.
by negidius 3y ago
> They're already starting to make it more difficult. Look at what's happening with DoH where it's harder and harder to choose how your DNS queries get done and you get steered to CloudFlare (who are pretty low on my list
8.
by negidius 3y ago
I don't think that's specific to the modern era. Was there ever a time when it wasn't like that?
9.
by negidius 3y ago
I have no idea what you are talking about. There are literally infinite alternatives because you can freely modify any open-source alternative in infinite ways. No one is going to kick down your door and shoot you if you try to make a new b
10.
by negidius 3y ago
That's frankly ridiculous. Moving countries is expensive, and there are a limited number of countries in the EU and the world. If you can't afford to move or don't trust any of them, you are out of luck. Installing an open-so
11.
by negidius 3y ago
They can install an open-source OS/browser and ignore Microsoft, Google, and Apple. There is nothing they can realistically do when they don't trust a government. Governments ultimately derive their power from their ability to imp
12.
by negidius 3y ago
It's hard to say whether that would be allowed because the regulation is written in such a vague language. There is a risk that such a system would be considered to be a precautionary measure under Article 45a-1.
13.
by negidius 3y ago
All of the EU's own websites have cookie banners. Everyone has cookie banners. The problem here is the law, not the companies.
14.
by negidius 3y ago
I certainly wouldn't call those successes.
15.
by negidius 3y ago
And those elected officials are beholden to the highest bidder. In the current system, the people who make CA decisions acquired that power voluntarily and seem to have acted benevolently in the past, that's way more than you can say
16.
by negidius 3y ago
EU governments will be even more subject to pressure from the US. I don't understand how anyone could doubt they will comply with every request from the US government. The difference is that the current decision makers only have power
17.
by negidius 3y ago
It would be impossible for them to force me to blindly accept a government issued ID card as true, and it would be insane for me to comply with such a demand. The same is true here, I won't run a browser or OS that complies with these
18.
by negidius 3y ago
The same argument could be made about the security research in the article. I think the majority of potential juror would never find someone guilty or liable for this, but there is always the risk that you are unlucky and end up with 12 who
19.
by negidius 3y ago
As a user, I definitely welcome it. It's necessary precisely because companies like this lie about their security practices and endanger their users. The question isn't whether it should be done, but whether it should be done anon
20.
by negidius 3y ago
I think most Democrats today recognize that was a mistake. The passage of the Respect for Marriage Act last year indicates that they have probably learned from that mistake.
21.
by negidius 3y ago
Even if you consider fetuses to be people, which I don't, it doesn't take away from the number of people killed by abortion bans. If you save two people by killing one, you have still killed one person.
22.
by negidius 3y ago
No. I'm self-taught, so I may be biased, but in my subjective experience all the best programmers I have worked with either had no formal education, or a non-technical education.
23.
by negidius 3y ago
There are a plenty of people who want to build more housing, and they would make a lot of money doing that if it wasn't illegal. The problem is not capitalism, it's statism.
24.
by negidius 3y ago
It's even worse for people who don't even have that option.
25.
by negidius 3y ago
I don't think there need to be any historical cultural context. It was just as wrong and bigoted then as now. It's not an excuse that most people agreed with him at the time. If I accepted that agreeing with the majority makes eve
26.
by negidius 3y ago
I'm not saying impeachment is effective. I'm just saying that voting is an even less effective check on corruption.
27.
by negidius 3y ago
I don't care if people disagree with me, and I wouldn't have anything against him if he was just personally bigoted and wrote about how much he hates gay people on his blog or something. I don't think people should be cancele
28.
by negidius 3y ago
That's an even less effective check than impeachment. Has anyone with a constituency as large as a member of congress ever lost an election because of corruption? If one has, was their constituency subject to political gerrymandering?
29.
by negidius 3y ago
It was not accurate and did not work well at all. It was completely arbitrary. I think the ability to withhold funding can be a powerful tool for governments to influence the journalism they fund. I think that's why governments fund jo
30.
by negidius 3y ago
I don't think it was working fine. The previous system treated state media from different countries very differently, even when they were identical according to any objective criteria. Ideally, they would have made a rule saying that i

More ›