Thank you, you as well.

GM

Interesting idea

Trip-M for short.

nostr:note1en3p9ds9e6drwza6ddmd0wmvm5mh28gmetz6getmpmedhdrehumsefwud0

Noooooo!

Hmmm sure would be shame if the name stuck. Nicknames chosen by a bot. Everyone started referring to you as TICC. Sure would be a shame…

The real question is why hasn’t that Big Mac from 1980 decomposed.

This says there is no way without delete to signal that the user no longer endorses the post or has learned and adapted and is responding. But there is, it’s just writing another note as a comment to the first note saying that you have reconsidered the opinion and now think differently or now regret the words that you said. Deleting isn’t the same as an apology. Deleting is frequently used as an attempt to rewrite history. “I never said that”. “We have always been at war with Oceania”

A box that the Amazon delivery person can securely put your deliveries that you also have a key or passcode to. Or deliver packages to your work.

What are they?

I finished the Netflix series and listened to a podcast about the first book. But I haven’t read it myself. The general take I got from it was anti authoritarian. Written from the perspective of someone whose sense of freedom is only their inner most thoughts amongst a greater more powerful force that can watch you all the time and explores how you survive in that. Basically layers of that nested within itself. That’s the situation for individual characters in history, that’s the situation for humanity and that’s the kind of the situation for the author the Netflix series is based on. Caveats for Hollywood etc and again I haven’t read the book.

Watching three body problem.

Beautiful

Welcome

Leucoagaricus americanus

Be careful I just used an app.

🤔 It’s not a reality that any policy or action of the US government attempts to achieve equal outcomes?

🤔 No American leaders fight for equal outcomes?

🤔 Harris herself and no one in the campaign fights for policy to achieve equal outcomes?

I’m not quite prepared to say pursuing equal outcomes is a sin. But ignoring that, I’m not sure how these claims can be true.

Isn’t it the policy of the United States to have a progressive tax code for the purpose of attempting to achieve a more equal outcome of income.

Isn’t it the policy of the United States to encourage affirmative action.

Isn’t school funding distributed to try to achieve a more equal outcome?

Isn’t SNAP eligibility and social security shaped to achieve more equal outcomes?

Isn’t the basis of your argument for equity based on observing outcomes, seeing the result is not equal, believing that to be an injustice, and implementing some tweak to the policy to try to eliminate the unequal outcome by distributing the resources in a manor other than equally.

Characterized as similar to RICo in the US and that scene could very well take place in the US. A conviction would require proving the organization existed and existed for the purpose of committing crimes. And sometimes i think RICO is an over reach and unconstitutional, but so far the Supreme Court doesn’t agree.

I will also say something may be unconstitutional but it takes years to work through the court and that doesn’t help anybody in the short term that is actually being harmed.

Here is the judges argument for why it’s not free speech among other arguments for the rulings they made. Free speech starts on 38.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.459733/gov.uscourts.nyed.459733.54.0_1.pdf

Essentially they say he is not being charged for the words he wrote, he is being charged because the words he wrote were in the purpose of a crime to defraud someone.

My gut says this case comes down to their intent. If he was actually trying to get people to think they could vote when they couldn’t and so trick them out of it, then I think he could be guilty. If his intent was, “this is silly”, then I think he wouldn’t be guilty. Which one of those is the case is a fact question. And Juries determine the facts of the case. In this case the jury heard his claim that it was satire and they didn’t believe him.

It’s like if I use words to trick a grandma into sending me money because I pretend to be her grandson in distress. I used words, words are free speech, but the charge isn’t that I said certain forbidden words, or topics, it’s that I defrauded a grandma.

With more reflection on the original video I will say there is a lot of framing, assuming the framing is accurate it feels like a clear over reach and abuse. But if the framing is false it’s similar to the use of RICO. Which is a little shady, but that might be a better comparison in the US and can be abused.

Just my random opinion.

Do the live streams broadcast the live services via a Nostr kind or do you have to scrape the html of these sites to provide the streams?

I don’t think so, not because of Kamala, but because the US constitution is a written document that still has enough Kasha with the courts and a Supreme Court that presently likes to try to read the thing, that these things would be clear first amendment violations. The UK doesn’t have a written constitution, I’m not a citizen or an expert but my uninformed opinion is that is easier to massage and erode, or if you are a fan of the changes “improve”.