So instead of demanding big tech companies monitor their broadcasts, they are banning kids from accessing them, how is that not directed at kids? It is explicitly directed at kids.
Freedom to raise your kids, and freedom to live your life as you choose, yes. Laws aren't needed for this. Content management should come from parents, and if websites are pushing agendas or misinformation you don't want your child on, you should be dictating what they are viewing.
You don't (lawfully) ban kids from parts of the library because you are worried they might read about things you don't like, you monitor which books they are reading and tell them not to read such, or discuss why/why not those resources do not agree with or match the principles you agree with.
This is the equivalent of banning kids talking to each other at school, on the bus or at the mall/park. If a platform is pushing harmful information then block that site, or bring a suit against the site for pushing harmful information.
Edit: If you don't want your kid on certain apps or sites you can start with things like this: https://families.google/familylink/ Don't force it on other people with laws, I believe parents should have the choice for themselves. Apps like that allow you to block social media sites, restrict their app usage and reset passwords if needed.
The older generations always think the younger generations are lazy and lesser. They don't believe they can parent because they know how shit they were at parenting. So they are voting to take away parental rights and give those rights to the government. And then say they are pro small government.
It will likely make a big difference. Freedoms being taken away day by day and we shrug it off.
Thanks, went over my head. I was thinking they had maybe thought they were on mastodon or something and tried to repost it and were actually on Lemmy.
Is there a term they use for that? Like people used to say retweet... Do they remasta it?
So it wasn't open was it, it was now paid for to someone else?
A nice item on my resume presumes a company sees profits which you are assuming a company desiring profits is willing to make 0 profit deals when spending money on assets. It's flawed at its core.
Capitalism forbids it
Okay, I would love that but let me see if I can play devils advocate and get productive responses that work in the capitalistic world we are stuck in.
Why would a company pay a team millions of dollars annually to give it away for free. That destines their entire company for failure in their mind. They get no kick backs other than a thank you note for doing so... Which means nothing to their bottom line but down.
In my experience it's because companies desire a year end return greater than the last. To do so means every investment of time to them needs to be of monetary gain, or else they show gains by cutting the employees that would work on that project and the bottom line goes up. Aka more investors and stock increases (overlap occurs there)
I don't think they do, I think they are inquiring into how we can get them to support production of these products without emphasizing on their own profits.
I have a feeling that they may mean real moonshine, not the stuff listed as moonshine in stores. Although it may not be considered "in public" I know a guy here that just left flyers at a local bar for his moonshine and would come by a few times a week and everyone knew which nights they'd be around. He'd reuse gallon jugs that used to have water, or those cheap punches you'd buy in stores. Most people would by a pint or quart though. He'd flavor some, but getting a gallon of it plain just basically tastes like slightly off grain alcohol.
At the end of the day, whatever was getting sucked out of the plastic bottle into the alcohol was likely just as bad for us as the alcohol itself.
I stopped going to bars, and cut back drinking by a long shot, but I'm sure if he's not around still someone likely took his place.
Assuming he lives to 88. And gets only 5% interest on his current money. Interest puts him over 1 trillion easy (around 1.8t) So assuming there are 450,000 users on Lemmy and we all make 3,000,000 dollars in our total lives... Yeah he will make about 1.5 times what me all make.
Sidenote: average stock market growth over 10 years has been around 11% I saw. So that would put his worth around 8.9 trillion in 35 years of just sitting on investments.
Not to mention I'm sure his tax cuts and deregulations will offset loses for buying X. Throw in gutting NASA, he opens more contracts for his companies. He will end up making money for sure.
Yeah it depends on the group policies that hit the machine set up by their company. Likely when a new user logs into the machine the image/policy isn't using C:\users%Username% as the default file location, but rather c:\users%username%\onedrive.
Thus creating a local copy of said files they create, and auto backing them up to OneDrive so they have backups and local copies.
The standard user directory still exists so if someone saves something there, it will show up in recents and then they will keep saving things there, and it won't back up. That's my guess
I think that has to do with the security they set up to try to ensure malware/viruses don't go upstream. If you are going to share permissions across users, across computers, and across multiple networks, you can't have Fred downloading an email to his documents which is automatically backing up to his onedrive which he shared with a sharepoint drive for everyone else to access and now it has permissions to come back down to their devices as well. I would say that's ignoring teams, but like it was pointed out elsewhere, SharePoint / OneDrive / Teams storage is essentially all the same.
I wonder why they were relevant to what they were saying then. They used to come up on my Pandora every once in a while when I was listening to Korpiklaani or Alestorm. Just wasn't 100% sure of the name.
Yeah, Anyone who thinks cheating should be a crime isn't emotionally mature enough to be in a relationship in my opinion. It's a horrible thing to cheat on someone, but laws aren't for hurt feelings.
Is Sons of Odin a band or is it something else? I remember a Norse metal band having a name like that.
If you don't sign any of the documents pertaining to ethics or taking an oath to protect the constitution you can't be charged with failing to uphold those oaths and ethics I suppose.