_-david-_

10 ms·

61.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
Not sure on the accuracy but in a random article it says The company also has a metric called “unregretted attrition rate” (URA), which represents the percentage of employees it would like to see leave the company – voluntarily or otherwise
62.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
The same reason we get a say in anything? We live in a republic and can vote.
63.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
They have Yum and repo support now. I don't know when it was added though.
64.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
Well, except for the part about mail in ballots. You can sell your ballot and signed envelope to a person so they can guarantee the vote is cast the way they want.
65.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
Interestingly enough the Navy has a patent to make UFOs that look real on radar and other sensors. [1] This seems like a good explanation as to why the Navy disproportionately has these sightings. It is possible the people who have made sta
66.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
Interesting how you didn't really address any of my points. >It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) should be further repressed and restricted (to include constitutional rights) by
67.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>No need to make excuses for parents not managing and supervising their kids. If a parent is concerned about sexuality or porn, it is their job to talk with their kids, tell them what they expect, and manage their environment. I agree th
68.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
You clearly are not reading what I am posting. I am saying when the first amendment was written, porn was considered to be obscene. Please point to a case in the 1700s that shows that porn was protected by the first amendment. I am not sugg
69.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>You read something somewhere but it's clear you're clueless when it comes to the US constitutional law. The first paragraph seems to be written by GPT-3. Calling somebody a bot is a great argument. >The second paragraph con
70.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
I don't think you are following my points likely due to me not explaining it well. Kids can easily access porn on accident. That is all my point is. We should make it easy to prevent kids from seeing it. Pornhub was on Instagram and so
71.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>Why would a child watch a gang bang? Because they accidentally ran across a link and clicked on it. YouTube comments are filled with links to porn / non age appropriate material for example. >I worry about vile content targeted
72.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
It is not strictly about saving lives and can include public health. When you read the page linked from the one you provided "compelling or overriding state interest"[1] it says it can include "the protection of public health
73.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>The average parent has the capability to block porn because blocking porn can be simply done with controlling internet device access. How are parents supposed to control devices their kid's friends have at school or at a friends ho
74.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
If the Supreme Court can just determine the scope of an amendment when it comes to dangers to children then there is no reason they can't say porn is damaging to children and say this law is constitutional. Not to mention, none of the
75.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>I was from the first generation to experience this, by being raised on the internet in the 90s. But I guess I had to just kinda figure it out on my own. The problem is many children cannot figure it out. >I think it's important
76.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>It could be the case for the majority of preteens. Kids are able to understand at an early age the difference between (some) fantasy and reality.[1][2] >For some porn it's very obvious and for some porn it's not. There is n
77.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
Surely you agree that certain content should not be consumed by children? Do you believe a 5 year old should be watching a gang bang?
78.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>why isn't this the parents' responsibility? Just because it is the parents' responsibility, doesn't mean the government cannot also make laws regarding it. Would you recommend removing the laws banning 5 year olds fr
79.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
That doesn't really address my point. If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. The Supreme Court seems to have a contradi
80.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
Obscenity is not protected freedom of expression. "Vanilla" porn is generally not considered to be obscenity. Child porn, rape, etc are obscenity. However, just because something is protected does not mean you cannot require an ID
81.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
First, we are talking about internet porn, not porn books or magazines or whatever you seem to be talking about. Secondly, you are going to have to explain the difference between a book and a gun constitutionally. If requiring an ID is dise
82.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>Why not install filtering in your home router and kids cellphones? The average parent is incompetent when it comes to technology. They wouldn't know what to use and would likely install some sort of malware. Perhaps Microsoft and A
83.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
Is it unconstitutional to require an id to get a gun?
84.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
> I think the main thing for teens or whoever to understand is that these are actors and this is purely an entertainment production Do you think that will be the case for the majority of preteens? Maybe once you become a teenager you can
85.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
Just because it is a democratic country doesn't mean it is free from corrupt or malicious persecution.
86.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>Twitter isn’t law enforcement so, no, there isn’t a requirement that they provide free hosting and promotion for everyone alleging a crime I didn't say they should be required to. I just think they should be consistent on their enf
87.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>The argument appears to be that an ID issues by a state government is ok, but if it’s issued by the federal government that’s somehow, philosophically an overreach of power. That is easy. The federal government is only allowed to do wha
88.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>First, if a crime was committed, which you have no proof of except accusations from shady or borderline criminal entities, he could very well get prosecuted. There are literally pictures of him smoking crack. I don't fully remember
89.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
>Also, fuck gift cards. Make them illegal And when scammers go back to using Western Union are you going to ban that as well? When they ask a person to send them cash are you going to ban cash as well? Hell let's just ban all money
90.
by _-david-_ 4y ago
Maybe.. I did say potentially on this one for a reason.

More ›