Theis is the breach I was referring to.

To be clear, the email thing was 100% the IA’s fault, much as I love their work. BleepingComputer warned them something like two weeks in advance.

This user is a troll FYI.

https://www.drovers.com/news/ag-policy/presidential-poll-results-how-farmers-and-economists-view-candidates-impact

This alone is compelling evidence that the average farmer is substantially more bigoted than the average person. Biofuels I can actually see because biofuels are fucking terrible, but the other four? Nah, blinded by bigotry.

To be clear, I’m not saying they can’t be savvy businesspeople – I absolutely include turning a profit in the part about farming their land. I’m just saying that as a demographic, they’re insular bigots who have no real understanding of the broader world.

Well you know, unless you’re Trump, who would defang the FTC and prevent them from taking this sort of pro-consumer action. Then the farmers will vote for you anyway because at the end of the day they’re still predominantly bigots who don’t know shit about fuck outside the land they farm.

Edit: farmers as a demographic overwhelmingly support Trump. 78% of them believe that Trump would better address inflation than Harris, and 76% believe he would better “expand trade and address trade disputes” – the literal exact opposite of what he’s been shown to have done with his stupid “trade war”. As a demographic, farmers are exactly as described above.

Hey, don’t kink shame.

Unilever certainly does, so fuck them.

We can’t, sorry.

Malaysia is currently undertaking this full transition as well.

Just a low-effort regurgitation of a MS blog post to then sell you on an ROG Ally X affiliate link at the end. I love modern online journalism.

Better get reading if you want to have any hope of disproving the unicorn statute:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1

You’re the one making a claim here that this is a probable First Amendment violation and liable to get the CCC in deep legal shit here, not me. The burden of proof is on you.

If a unicorn runs into the courtroom, the prosecution is required to do the hokey pokey and donate exactly $2 to a charity of the defense’s choice. Now I could be a good boy and cite the statute that says that, or I could tell you “actually, you go find something that says it doesn’t exist and prove me wrong lol.”

Which one seems more reasonable?

Okay, and your legal credentials and/or cited example(s) of judicial precedent is/are [fill in the blank here].

To be clear, they are simply choosing not to continue providing something they’re actively privileging Musk with, namely allowing the rocket launches. They’re not revoking something that he inherently has the right to.

It would be like if the government were paying Musk money, he said and did a bunch of fucked up shit, and then – absent a contract saying they can’t – stopped providing the money. That’s not a First Amendment violation; that’s just discontinuing giving Musk something he isn’t entitled to.

The California Coastal Commission’s job is to conserve the Californian coastline and have the authority to approve and deny this sort of thing, and no, you absolutely do not have a legal right to just launch a shitload of rockets off the Californian coast without prior government approval.

I’m not literally saying that Musk is employed by the California government; I’m saying that Musk doesn’t have an inherent legal right to this much like I don’t have an inherent legal right to work in the government, and California has the right to shut down his rocket launches on any grounds they want.

This is not a First Amendment violation or anything approximating one. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech”, and this of course applies to laws created by state legislatures too. What law is being created here which abridges freedom of speech? A state commission is denying Musk from launching more rockets from the coast, something which he absolutely does not have an inherent legal right to do.

Would you say that it’d be a First Amendment issue if I applied for a government job, went and cussed out the interviewer, and then was turned down for the job because it was the government abridging my freedom of speech?

It’s definitely been a bit of a pain over on Wikipedia, but I’m glad that the IA is being responsible about this instead of just saying “fuck it, ship it”.

The final boss of PE.

Yeah, this response is a rare boomer W.

Eh, I dunno, I think philosophy can be pretty cool.

• Logic and epistemology give us the tools to create proofs and algorithms, and it’s basically the foundation of modern mathematics.
• Having the tools to communicate and understand concepts in ethics makes society more secular (because ethics aren’t just handed down from on high) and hopefully more humane.
• Metaphysics I feel again moves us more toward secularism because it gives us ways to reason about the universe other than just “some big powerful boi did it (and he conveniently thinks you should give me money)”.