698 karma · joined June 21, 2023
In the US those people lost their rights by committing criminal acts and were convicted by a jury of their peers.
In China, the Uyghurs were forced into camps because of their ethnicity.
No different than Nazi Germany. And yes those camps are real.
Btw the prison labor camp talking point is a common 50 cent army tactic. Not sure if you're doing it for free or...
We can hope the CCP's consciousness grows and they shutdown their concentration camps, stop organ harvesting, and start having elections.
The ball is in their court.
We can talk TikTok being allowed after that.
how in the world would that show a modicum of honesty?
If everyone is so outraged and there's so many TikTok users, they can rally and vote out the people who voted for this.
I for one support this ban fwiw. You'll find out a lot of people do too. So in this instance and quite a few others, my representative has voted in my favor.
what a nice way to say forcing a backdoor to identify, spy on, and oppress citizens.
but yeah I guess oppression of people is a "high bar" for foreign operators to meet.
backdoors are wrong here and are wrong there.
Nothing to do with the Chinese people as a whole, and everything to do about their overlords.
Before you do some whataboutism, yes the US spies, even on it's own citizens. That is a separate issue we should make sure doesn't happen.
Two things can be bad and is not an excuse for more spying or letting foreign adversaries broadcast psyops.
The US is doing the opposite, it's removing TikTok because they probably spy / psyop for the CCP.
One country (China) was trying to force foreign companies to spy / psyop.
One country (US) is making sure a foreign adversary doesn't use it to spy / psyop.
Tiktok US users of voting age are already accounted for in that process, they don't get extra sway just because they use the app.
Decentralization can be hidden from the user, it's an implementation detail.
There's literally a popular decentralized social network.
It's less about the tech, and more about the execution.
Historically we can look at LimeWire or PopcornTime as an example.
Both decentralized, both popular due to the ease-of-use.
I believe Gitea has support for it, not sure to what extent.
They know to do use control burns, we've been doing it.
It's forest management 101.
But they get sued by environmentalists when they do.
Most reasons denote it's racist because of socioeconomic status.
Should we account for income in BMI as well?
2. Pay people to write paper about it.
3. Have shills link it everywhere for free.
None of the facts they sprinkled in are relevant to their conclusions.
What exactly do you find compelling from it?
and no, that's a terrible article as well.
feel free to pick out the strongest point you think the article has and present it.
dumping links is not a conversation.
They try to relate it to socioeconomic status, but BMI is applied to poor white people as well.
I don't buy that reasoning on face value though, it's perfectly affordable to eat healthy. These days fast food and processed foods are much more expensive than buying fresh groceries.
Just a trash article trying to normalize obesity and race-bait.
Plus one less card space in it, even if it did work.
I also don't see my cat wearing that thing either. Maybe a large dog.
But things like wallets, remotes, cats, dogs, are usually in your possession frequently and only lost for short periods of time before you notice.
Luggage would be a good use case, and possibly bikes and other large equipment. But I would opt for something more discreet vs a larger battery.
I use an airtag for my wallet and apple remote.
The public transportation is not relevant for the discussion of personal vehicle transportation though.
And yes Waymo increases traffic. People in SF were putting cones on them to disable them because of it, there's tons of videos of them causing traffic jams.
They are famously overly cautious and often stop and do strange maneuvers.
Recently one held up Kamala Harris' motor brigade for quite a while until a cop moved it.
I suppose that's one definition of it, a more extreme version. No country on Earth has this kind of immigration policy. It would be unsustainable.
> It doesn't mean the borders aren't secure enough for your paranoid xenophobic liking.
Ad-hominem attacks are not necessary. My wife is second generation immigrant. Her father is first generation, they do not support illegal immigration either. He came here legally and the people that come here illegally take away resources from those who want to come here legally the right way.
> If the vast majority of them accept that the elections were legitimate, they were legitimate.
???
> determined by the people who don't like the results
So I guess I have to ask, which people and how are you determining majority legitimacy if not by vote?
it's a fact that more people considered it legitimate, otherwise the candidate in question wouldn't have won the election.
let me ask you this about your "fact" how "many people" didn't consider it legitimate? should be easy to answer since it's a fact.