![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/gWmVEUZ94Z.png)
Trump wouldn’t have agreed if the mods were going to been anything but prompt readers
Trump wouldn’t have agreed if the mods were going to been anything but prompt readers
The Dems are reactionaries and that is a terrible best option.
There is a inversion of sorts here that is also important. If some people have access to the information hidden to everyone else they have power and control. Allowing just a few to read everything everyone else does gives them undo power. The access law enforcement has can and it abused, it is also sold or stolen.
I’m saying that if you need signals to reduce the risk of crashing you shouldn’t drive, which is probably 98% of humans. That is the vast majority of people should drive.
You know the answer, why can’t you admit it?
Keep up the cope, you shouldn’t be driving.
I’m sorry that you’re not good at driving but please stop using cars and putting others at risk.
By majority it’s 100%, physics exists and the time required to maneuver in being capable of turning or lane changing is plenty to clearly signal what it will do. The reality is that if you need turn signals you are bad at driving and should not drive. Most humans are not capable and cars should not be how the majority of people get around.
It’s really funny to watch people cope with the reality that they are not skilled at using a car. People should not drive cars, cars killed tens of thousands of people.
Yeah it’s really not hard to read what a car is going to do. It’s clear that many people cannot do it and to that end should not be driving.
If you need other cars to use turn signals you shouldn’t be driving.
Well that is disappointing.
I actually ment corporate ha
It’s highlighting a potential significant risk. Major ozone loss is much worse than lack of internet. The high uncertainty of the paper is easily offset by the harm that would be caused if the paper is correct.
Doing scientific experiments to understand the risks is worth doing.
Just a cooperate lawyer, so yes.
Authentication of the author is not the same as copyright.
I don’t, it’s not the 18th century and the industrial revolution. Copyright had a time and place and that isn’t the here and now. We are worse off for copyright and patients today. Today they enshrine wealth and are a tool to prevent progress and inflate cost.
Clearly not , which only makes the point. Consumer protection for digital products is weak and needs reform.
He literally is an old man. Which is the core issue.