Not a lawyer, but I wonder if there a case to be made with letting a woman get an infection and die due to the fear of commiting a crime by killing the baby. In the end, two people died, but one could have survived.

Strong worded letter again. As long as they still come to work tomorrow, Bezos can use them as he likes.

Except if it’s free software.

I had to rewatch the video to make sure I got an exact image of what swiggity swooty means

Not OP, but I guess it shows the general loss of confidence in institutions in the US. When people wanna shoot their guns at disaster relief organizations, it indicates they don’t trust anything from the government, and the feeling is more than just skepticism, it’s heinous.

Didn’t realise that… Thanks!

Would it be inconsistent for a vegan to claim they love houseplants?

I’d add Peter Thiel to that list.

Old guy here. My advice: find something you really like and do that. Doing something you like multiplies by 10 the chance you’ll get good at it. You’ll have to try out a few things, which might give you the impression you are wasting your time; but it’s better to lose 3-4 years finding your way than burning up at 35 because you hate what you do.

Time spend undoing/redoing stuff and delays caused by clients should always be billed, and contracts should address that.

Did you ever stop and think about all the scientific and technical advances made since the invention of personal computers that allow you to send a turd emoji to random strangers?

He’s just seeing what Trump and the GOP are planning for the US and hopes he’ll be one of the oligarchs at the top in the end.

You seem to believe that Trump saying “fake news!” is enough to consider that something is actually fake news. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking can verify this kind of affirmation and decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong. There’s a difference between a truth and a belief, but your argument seems to equate the two.

If a judge in Brazil says an account should be banned because it spreads disinformation, I can go and check what was posted and decide if it’s indeed disinformation. Now I might not have time to verify every affirmation like this so I tend to trust the judicial system of any country by default, unless I have reason to believe they can’t be trusted.

Maybe the only way to avoid a large scale long-term climate crisis is to sue the hell out of those responsible.

I think there are a few simple criteria to discriminate between legitimate opponents and others: spreading disinformation, bad faith, populism, the absence of a coherent political discourse, etc. If a government identifies illegitimate opponents based on these criteria, I’m ok with that.

So, what makes you think these accounts were legitimate political opponents?

So the X accounts belonged to legitimate political opponents, they weren’t spreading disinformation?

I don’t know about the judicial system in Brazil but they don’t seem that corrupted…

He doesn’t care, he thinks he’ll get a presidential pardon after Trump gets elected.

This comment is a great illustration of what’s wrong with social media. All communities eventually become echo chambers where no one really cares about respectful discussion, criticism or facts.

(…) you’re a racist AND dumb.

To a large extent you’re racist because you’re dumb.

For the last few months they’ve traded their dog whistles for blow horns. More and more hatred is being normalized.

A steady stream of bullshit, just like before the 2016 election. Trump won, so it’s not surprising they consider this their winning strategy.