![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0d5e3a0e-e79d-4062-a7bc-ccc1e7baacf1.png)
As far as I am concerned, it’s purposefully weakly designed, because these break a LOT.
Could be sacrificial because the plastic case is cheaper/easier to replace than whatever else would break instead of it were stronger.
As far as I am concerned, it’s purposefully weakly designed, because these break a LOT.
Could be sacrificial because the plastic case is cheaper/easier to replace than whatever else would break instead of it were stronger.
That extra hour of wage theft is why it’s the most prevalent kind of theft.
You know there’s only one thing to do now, right? You have to make a 7-meter-tire tall bike.
(Don’t blame me; I don’t make the rules.)
Smash burgers and thick burgers can both be good; they’re just different.
Grace Hopper invented the some of the first “high level” languages, FLOW-MATIC and COBOL. I’m not sure about the first assembler.
Yes, actually. And everyone else should, too.
The “transition away from gas vehicles” and the “transition to electric vehicles” aren’t the same thing and shouldn’t be conflated.
The bulk of the transition should be to other forms of transportation, not simply subbing out disastrous gas automobiles for only-marginally-less-disastrous electric automobiles.
If I were less lazy, I’d make a gif of myself zapping your comment with the uBlock Origin element zapper tool.
I mean, if this makes me a sovcit then it means Thomas Jefferson was one too, so at least I’m in good company.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If the baby skull is all-despising, doesn’t that mean it isn’t bigoted anymore and is thus paradoxically suboptimal?
Checkmate, atheists!
To be clear, property rights don’t come from laws; they are natural rights. “Property” as a concept stems from the fact that when Caveman Oog gets himself a neat tool-shaped rock and is holding it in his hand, nobody else can use it because he’s the one who has it, and the only way they could use it is for him to not have it anymore. He controls it and its use is exclusive to him. The rock is his property. The law doesn’t create that concept; it only codifies it so that the rock can remain Oog’s when he sets it down, instead of him having to guard it all day.
“Corporate” “property” “rights” are a whole different thing:
Contrary to the Dred Scott-level bullshit the SCOTUS excreted in Citizens United, corporations are not people and don’t even have an inherent right to exist, let alone any other rights. A person (i.e. a sole proprietor) has rights. People associating with each other (i.e. a full-liability general partnership) have rights. A group granted the privileges of limited liability and taxation as a separate entity via incorporation exists at the pleasure of the State, and the State has every right to impose conditions on that existence in exchange for granting the privilege.
Copyright is not “property.” A copyrighted work is an expression of an idea, and ideas are as near to opposite of property as it is possible to be. Not only does an idea stand in stark contrast to Oog’s rock in that it can be freely shared to the other cavemen without Oog losing possession of it, the value of it comes from the act of sharing. A creative work that never leaves the creator’s head is worthless, while a work shared with the whole world is incredibly valuable. (Don’t take my word for it, though: Thomas Jefferson – the guy who wrote or helped write the Copyright Clause, BTW – made a similar point, more eloquently explained.)
Copyright isn’t a “right” either. It, like incorporation, is a privilege granted by the State (or more specifically, Congress, but Federalism is beside the point). It does not exist because the creator of a work is somehow entitled to it, or even because the People wish to reward creators for their work. Copyright exists for the sole and express purpose “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts” – in other words, to enrich the Public Domain. The mechanism of copyright, granting a temporary monopoly in order to encourage the creation of more works than would otherwise exist, is nothing more than a means to an end. The goal of copyright is for it to expire!
Anyway, point is, I’m kinda already making that distinction between basic human dignity (natural rights) and artificial laws (copyright). The situation we find ourselves in today, where actual property rights of actual people are being subordinated to Intellectual Imaginary Property “rights” of imaginary “people” is some pants-on-head stupid, ass-backwards, Bizarro-world bullshit!
Property rights are those rights, and we already have them. The issue is that the copyright cartel is trying to take them away from us. They are colonizing our devices with DRM + the DMCA anti-circumvention clause in an attempt to reduce us to techno-serfdom.
Ad-blocking, Free Software, Right to Repair (also a right we already have, not a new one we need), “you will own nothing and be happy” propaganda , etc. are all just different aspects of the same issue: the corporate war against property rights.
I don’t need “grounds” for ad blocking, and neither do you. My property rights say that I’m entitled to modify the computation my system is doing as I see fit.
Agreeing with a persuasive argument is not ‘being a follower.’
Frankly, the fact that this bill seems to have broad support among the same Congress that’s not only renewing but expanding FISA is suspicious enough to begin with. The EFF’s analysis about how it preempts potentially-stronger state laws to form a ceiling on privacy rights instead of a floor just proves the obvious: that it’s a limited hangout designed to give the appearance of addressing the problem while actually shielding big business from real privacy protections with teeth.
Thanks.
Now that we’ve cleared that up, I’d just like to state for the record that I agree with the EFF, not you. Sorry.
Did you link to the wrong article?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/04/americans-deserve-more-current-american-privacy-rights-act
Don’t hand it back; rip it up and then apologize and ask for a second one. Then rip that one up, too.
No, they’ve got plenty of access. They just don’t want to be exposed to anything that challenges their indoctrination.
What’s folks’ lack of hair got to do with their bottle cap making skills?