Let me translate this for our American brothers:
"I will friendzone you if your height is less than 6 feet and 2.4 inches"
Which seems strangely specific if we're being honest.
"I will friendzone you if your height is less than 6 feet and 2.4 inches"
Which seems strangely specific if we're being honest.
Ah, the answer is they didn't compensate for it in any way and they probably didn't want to. It's just a phone survey.
Go figure that a "national violence against women survey" would find out exactly what such a survey explicitly intends to find based on the title.
Go figure that a "national violence against women survey" would find out exactly what such a survey explicitly intends to find based on the title.
I can't think of any way you could measure that properly without biological biases kicking in hard. "Oh, it wasn't *real* violence, she was a girl! teehee!"
At this point, a war between Biden's USA and Trudeau's Canada would be a sissyfight between armies of they'd.
These guys are shooting themselves in the head. If they keep associating the word "disinformation" with "true facts we don't like" then the boy who cried wolf will be eaten sooner or later.
Absolutely, it's one of those things where perception and reality don't necessarily meet.
Yeah, for most people who downloaded stuff maybe you'd get a nasty email from your ISP. But for some people, they ended up with a life-changing lawsuit or their internet shut off, and for some businesses that were based around this stuff they ended up with the Apocalypse play where an entire industry sued their companies and directors into the history books.
Yeah, for most people who downloaded stuff maybe you'd get a nasty email from your ISP. But for some people, they ended up with a life-changing lawsuit or their internet shut off, and for some businesses that were based around this stuff they ended up with the Apocalypse play where an entire industry sued their companies and directors into the history books.
Ultimately, decentralization is the only way to protect free speech, because it takes any one actor out of the equation.
Even if I keep using youtube and rumble, I'll continue to do what I can to expand the peertube ecosystem.
Even if I keep using youtube and rumble, I'll continue to do what I can to expand the peertube ecosystem.
This is the secret they don't want everyone to know: A "no fossil fuels" policy is a genocidal policy. Billions would die.
I can't believe that you are opposed to the glorious worker's revolution that'll kill most of the workers.
Really odd, most data centers have top notch fire suppression systems. They trigger before the fire starts, and can suppress fires without damaging anything else.
I know a guy whose entire job for several years was setting such fire suppression up for a major data center. Some of the stuff he showed me was out of this world.
I know a guy whose entire job for several years was setting such fire suppression up for a major data center. Some of the stuff he showed me was out of this world.
I know wikipedia is suspect these days, but this article matches with the story I was told by a lawyer:
https://wikiless.org/wiki/English_land_law?lang=en#History
"Feudalism meant that all land was held by the Monarch. Estates in land were granted to lords, who in turn parcelled out property to tenants. Tenants and lords had obligations of work, military service, and payment of taxation to those up the chain, and ultimately to the Crown. Most of the peasantry were bonded to their masters. Serfs, cottars or slaves, who may have composed as much as 88 per cent of the population in 1086,[4] were bound by law to work on the land. They could not leave without permission of their Lords. But also, even those who were classed as free men were factually limited in their freedom, by the limited chances to acquire property. "
Historically speaking, everything was the property of the king and simply granted for a limited time. It was a little after the dates above that the first property rights were established. Just the ability to own property was a big change, and later on the ability to have land solely pass to your heirs, rather than having your superiors be able to take it from you at any time.
"[...] the Statute of Westminster 1285 formalised the system of entail so that land would only pass to the heirs of a landlord. The Statute Quia Emptores Terrarum 1290 allowed alienation of land only by substitution of the title holder, halting creation of further sub-tenants."
Which quickened the process of the end of feudalism. The story is really interesting, and one I come back to often when talking about labor rights and the effects of certain ostensibly unrelated policies on the same.
https://wikiless.org/wiki/English_land_law?lang=en#History
"Feudalism meant that all land was held by the Monarch. Estates in land were granted to lords, who in turn parcelled out property to tenants. Tenants and lords had obligations of work, military service, and payment of taxation to those up the chain, and ultimately to the Crown. Most of the peasantry were bonded to their masters. Serfs, cottars or slaves, who may have composed as much as 88 per cent of the population in 1086,[4] were bound by law to work on the land. They could not leave without permission of their Lords. But also, even those who were classed as free men were factually limited in their freedom, by the limited chances to acquire property. "
Historically speaking, everything was the property of the king and simply granted for a limited time. It was a little after the dates above that the first property rights were established. Just the ability to own property was a big change, and later on the ability to have land solely pass to your heirs, rather than having your superiors be able to take it from you at any time.
"[...] the Statute of Westminster 1285 formalised the system of entail so that land would only pass to the heirs of a landlord. The Statute Quia Emptores Terrarum 1290 allowed alienation of land only by substitution of the title holder, halting creation of further sub-tenants."
Which quickened the process of the end of feudalism. The story is really interesting, and one I come back to often when talking about labor rights and the effects of certain ostensibly unrelated policies on the same.
The photo on the left is 20 years old, the photo on the right is 20 seconds old. Take another photo in 6 months and we'll see how it looks.
Based on the history of rights and common law, you're correct. The first human rights ever were property rights, and prior to that the kings owned everything and simply delegated out his various possessions to different people. Eventually, courts decided that there was such a thing as a right to property, and that you owned a control that property, and that you could pass down that property to your heirs. From there, common law courts ended up deriving civil rights from the property rights.
And that kind of swings back to my previous point, because good government would have fair and reasonable rules about property, and rules that basically apply to everyone the same. And we've seen that, that where is at one point for example only white men could own property, eventually that privilege was extended to people of color and eventually women and that is the way things should be (but don't say that on the fediverse LOL). When you have a certain set of rules that give specific protections or powers to only one group of people, often that is a bad law, and the extraordinary powers and protections granted to the banking industry are a good example. If a bank had to maintain its business model without all of these different protections, it would be no different than these Bitcoin exchanges. They would be constantly going out of business, and they did constantly go out of business, and that's why they got in bed with government.
If the government stepped in and canceled all debts tomorrow, it wouldn't be particularly equitable since there are some people who have massive debt and they would otherwise eventually go bankrupt for, but it wouldn't end capitalism. More likely it would hurt a bunch of people, make a lot of people much better off, and it would massively reduce the magnitude of things that got done.
A life without real debt isn't unprecedented. Under Christian ideology the commandment against usury was interpreted as a commandment against interest-bearing debts, and that commandment was carried forward to the Muslim theology and there are entire countries operating by Islam that don't have that kind of debt.
And that kind of swings back to my previous point, because good government would have fair and reasonable rules about property, and rules that basically apply to everyone the same. And we've seen that, that where is at one point for example only white men could own property, eventually that privilege was extended to people of color and eventually women and that is the way things should be (but don't say that on the fediverse LOL). When you have a certain set of rules that give specific protections or powers to only one group of people, often that is a bad law, and the extraordinary powers and protections granted to the banking industry are a good example. If a bank had to maintain its business model without all of these different protections, it would be no different than these Bitcoin exchanges. They would be constantly going out of business, and they did constantly go out of business, and that's why they got in bed with government.
If the government stepped in and canceled all debts tomorrow, it wouldn't be particularly equitable since there are some people who have massive debt and they would otherwise eventually go bankrupt for, but it wouldn't end capitalism. More likely it would hurt a bunch of people, make a lot of people much better off, and it would massively reduce the magnitude of things that got done.
A life without real debt isn't unprecedented. Under Christian ideology the commandment against usury was interpreted as a commandment against interest-bearing debts, and that commandment was carried forward to the Muslim theology and there are entire countries operating by Islam that don't have that kind of debt.