jaywalk

50 ms·

631.
by jaywalk 4y ago
I understand how law is made quite well, which is why I specifically said that Roe invented a "Constitutional right" and not a "law." Of course, for the last 50 years Roe was part of our law. Now it's not, because i
632.
by jaywalk 4y ago
The entire point of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, as laid out in the Constitution. Roe was a "creative" interpretation. Upholding the 2nd Amendment is far from that.
633.
by jaywalk 4y ago
We are clearly talking about two very different things. I'm talking about the government forcing a corporation to fire certain employees, not a corporation making that decision on it's own.
634.
by jaywalk 4y ago
The Constitution doesn't "only talk" about militias, and doesn't mention muskets (or any other specific type of arms) at all. Indeed, muskets weren't even "state of the art" when the Constitution was writt
635.
by jaywalk 4y ago
I'm going to assume that you believe they'd throw it out, so I will ask you what part of today's decision leads you to believe that?
636.
by jaywalk 4y ago
> there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. Explain this, please. You still have the right to remain silent, you still have the right to an attorney. The police still have to stop questioning you
637.
by jaywalk 4y ago
> since Rowe v. Wade was primarily a decision about medical privacy And it got thrown out for precisely this reason. Although cocaine can be prescribed in very limited circumstances, my doctor cannot just write me a prescription for coca
638.
by jaywalk 4y ago
So it's fine if they force your employer to fire you, just so long as they're not throwing you in prison.
639.
by jaywalk 4y ago
How is what I said a misrepresentation? I used the word "flawed" and I think it perfectly represents her opinion. She acknowledged that the reasoning behind it opened up the door to it being overturned, which is something that man
640.
by jaywalk 4y ago
This is such a nonsense talking point. No right that you have compels any other private citizen to do anything . You do, however, have plenty of rights that prevent people from doing things to you . And no, you don't get twist it
641.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Exactly correct, and today's ruling still doesn't prevent Congress from acting. They had 50 years to codify Roe into law, but they didn't. And now they'll come out and try to deflect the blame onto the Supreme Court, w
642.
by jaywalk 4y ago
I think we just have different definitions of "inventing rights" because I pretty much agree with everything else you said.
643.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Thank you for spelling out the facts. I don't think a lot of people realized what was really going on with all this May Issue nonsense. It was pure corruption, and completely antithetical to the Constitution. I personally believe that
644.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Nobody is enforcing social views on anybody. The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist, and today's decision corrected that. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed! The
645.
by jaywalk 4y ago
People pay way more than 500% more just to have a logo on their shirt. It has nothing to do with quality.
646.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Plausible is correct in ignoring the DNT flag, as it does not apply to the data they collect. Have you read the DNT policy that the EFF created, which is linked in that issue? It goes further than what the W3C defined, and it still does n
647.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Saying that using an ad blocker equals a user expressing their preference to not have their visit logged to a third party is a pretty weak connection. As long as none of your personal data is involved, it's not your data. It belongs to
648.
by jaywalk 4y ago
No, it's a legitimate question. There is literally nothing you can do to stop a website from logging your visit, so I don't understand your argument here. Visit logging (what Plausible does) and tracking (what Google Analytics doe
649.
by jaywalk 4y ago
What aspect of your "privacy" do you believe Plausible is violating? None of the (very minimal) data they collect is even linked to you in any way. There are no cookies or any other persistent identifiers. Raw web server logs (whi
650.
by jaywalk 4y ago
True, but we're talking about fully internal systems here, where one party is in control of both the client and server.
651.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Is the word "plummet" really appropriate here? They're talking about falling at a rate of 0.001mph, which is much faster than expected but hardly a "plummet."
652.
by jaywalk 4y ago
If your code is using a license that allows it, how could you possibly opt-out aside from using a different license?
653.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Their system was basically designed the way you're saying, with a fallback to grab the data from the central location if it's missing locally. What you're asking for is the same system without a fallback, which doesn't m
654.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Anything published by a corporation of Target's size is, at some level, marketing.
655.
by jaywalk 4y ago
If the local system doesn't have the item data (or thinks it doesn't have the item data, because it's looking in the wrong place) where exactly is it supposed to get the item data from if not the central system?
656.
by jaywalk 4y ago
I think a better solution would be to use the 404 code but include a body with the detailed error. That way the response to an invalid URL looks different from an actual item not being found.
657.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Well, yeah. That's their logo. It's not like they trademarked the letter "M" itself.
658.
by jaywalk 4y ago
I suppose I had that coming after making that mistake.
659.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Fuck this patent and OSU in general. -Michigan fan
660.
by jaywalk 4y ago
Why? We've already got better standards, there's no need to add complexity to TOTP.

More ›