4 ms·
Don’t post this on HN. Simple search terms give you your answer. I read your post. I go, surely with what he’s stated if it’s true, it wouldn’t be hard to fin
by s5300 4y ago
Don’t post this on HN.
Simple search terms give you your answer.
I read your post. I go, surely with what he’s stated if it’s true, it wouldn’t be hard to find.
I put in my iPhone search engine “Texas drones animal cruelty”
And, in the first results, are these receipts you ask for.
I am begging you to simply use the search engine that takes no more than five seconds of your time rather than posting asking for “receipts” or “sources” & “citations” …
- rootusrootus 4y agoIt seems like a fair question, though. I did your google search. All of the hits that immediately came up were from sources that clearly have an axe to grind. In any case, it looks like the law got mostly overturned a couple weeks ago, if I'm reading correctly. I imagine there will be ongoing litigation. Even without "ag gag" legislation, there is no shortage of people who really don't want drones flying around their neighborhoods taking pictures.
- tomcam 4y agoThanks for telling me what not to post here. Can you be more explicit as to what I am allowed to say? You appear to be more helpful than the HN guidelines, which aren’t as thorough as you are. P.S. my Web searches didn’t come up with reliable-looking results, which is why I asked the illicit question.
- s5300 4y agoCan you tell me what about your web searches didn’t align with what the parent said? All I’m trying to say is not to post the most low hanging of fruit. Something to the tune of “I’ve looked & you appear to be incorrect” is much better than “receipts?” Do you disagree?