They still are one of the major contributers to climate change and global pollution. Less shipping is always better.

In the US there isn’t but as far as I can tell, over here in Germany lawyers and doctors are not permitted to report past crimes. The damage has been done and there is no harm to prevent anymore, as such keeping confidentiality has a higher priority than the state’s desire to prosecute crimes.

Even if these groups become aware of future planned crimes, they are not obligated to report anything if they genuinely attempt to prevent the person from comitting the crime (except for murder, manslaughter, kidnapping/taking hostages, genocide or war crimes).

How does the nonexistant confidentiality of lawyers prevent them from deciding to stop being your lawyer and become a witness against you? I.e. you are accused of a crime, admit said crime to your lawyer, your lawyer then becomes a witness stating you admitted to the crime.

How does that even make sense?

Wouldn’t you lower the sentence if the victim AI says it forgives the killer? Because - you know - it significantly reduces the “revenge” angle the American justice system is based on?

The comment - which isn’t edited - uses (c).

Whatever client you use replaces/renders © [bracket c bracket] as ©.

Maybe it’s because Mr. Controversial Gesture, alias Sir The Nazis Were Actually Leftists aka Dr. Only The AfD Can Save Germany rivals only Ford in his open support of fasism? You know, Henry Ford, the guy Adolf Hitler called “a great man”?

In a bar, 13% of guests openly wear nazi clothes, with swastikas and German military emblems.

Is it a nazi bar?

You wouldn’t have a notebook. Any and all stimuli would be banned as the purpose is making your experience horrible.

Also, you get incredibly mundane tasks as well. Maybe you’ll get a couple sheets of random symbols and are tasked to count a certain letter. And if you don’t do this task you can be laid off for underperforming.

Fully agree. Just wanted to provide an argument why having commercial truck drivers have some English proficiency could be beneficial for safety. Requiring a 3 month English course for those unfamiliar with the language as part of getting a CDL would do the trick. But that wouldn’t hand money to private prisons, would it?

But the inconsistency is the problem.

Take a look at the top signs about driving on the shoulder. Who is to say there aren’t twenty more variations?

Maybe a couple of

“Driving on shoulder mandatory”

“Trucks on shoulder only”

“Passing on shoulder permitted”

“$100 fine for driving on shoulder”

“Keep shoulder clear”

“No trucks allowed on shoulder”

There doesn’t seem to be any standard. It’s just text.

Doesn’t the US have a shitton of unstandardized road signs which are just words?

I feel like you have to have some English proficiency to understand them.

Gleichschaltung took a bit of time for the nazis.

The Night of the Long Knives is only applicable if the judge herself were a nazi who is seen as a potential threat due to being slightly differently aligned than the main faction.

AI is worthless if you are unable to tell hallucination from fact.

But just like NP hard problems, verifying a given solution is much easier than coming up with one yourself.

What does that even mean?

My comment argues that claiming antisemitism includes discrimination against anyone who is a semite has zero historical basis. It would also now exclude many Jews who are not semites yet were targeted by the Anti-Semites.

Of course genocide is bad. But anyone arguing Palestinians should be genocided because they are all “antisemites” will never be convinced by arguments. Therefore, there is no point in attempting to adjust the definition of antisemitism.

Antisemitism is defined by hatred of Jews, as coined by the German group Anti-Semites who wanted to have a fancier name than Jew-Haters.

It doesn’t really matter for anything that Palestinians are akshually semites.

It’s like arguing that racism is not a thing because technically human races do not exist outside pseudoscientific eugenics.

It assumes the man is being imprisoned for just cause

Guantanamo Bay doesn’t rely on any cause though? It’s literally a US torture camp where nothing matters. No due process, no just cause, no nothing. It’s worse than CECOT in everything but scale.

Have you ever seen any country’s opposition figure successfully demand something from another country? I personally haven’t. Usually the government alone controls any and all foreign relations.

Hell, Israel has literally detained and deported two British MPs on a parliamentary delegation - not just a visit. And they’re part of the governing party, no less!

It’s genuinely not surprising that El Salvador reacts this way. It’s the literal default reaction to a nongovernmental politician demanding something.

And yes, I think it’s appalling that the I US deports anyone and everyone, legally or otherwise. This doesn’t affect El Salvador though since they detain whoever the US sends there. The US argues this man is a terrorist, therefore this is sufficient justification for them.

Had Britain started deporting migrants to Rwanda and a MP from the Green Party requested to visit someone “mistakenly” deported, they would’ve been denied access as well.

I just really don’t think there’s anything noteworthy in the rejection alone.

Potato potato

Why is it called the Unicode Emoticons Block when it only includes emojis? Checkmate atheist!

Wrong emoji. Should’ve used >:3

It should be fairly normal to decline a random politician from another country a request no one else gets.

It reeks a bit of American exceptionalism that US senators should get special rights. If a random politician from, say, the Netherlands asked to see someone held in Guantanamo Bay the US will do fuck all to accommodate this request.

My comment is not a justification for the deportation of that guy by the way. I just don’t think it should be notable, as random politicians usually enjoy much, much fewer rights than head of states.

That’s like the least noteworthy aspect of German anti-piracy action out there tbh.

There’s an entire industry around identifying people who torrent and fining them 4 digit amounts as well as forcing them to sign a declaration never to pirate again in their lifetime (which, when broken, results in contractual fines a magnitude larger). Don’t want to sign? Tough luck, have fun losing a lawsuit forcing you to sign it.

The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?

Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.

There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it. What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.

Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.

IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs. Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. The vast, vast, VAST majority of artists make hardly any money already. Just check Bandcamp or itch.io and see how many millions of artists there are who will never ever see success. They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?