![](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/d1dfc6ea-8cfc-49d6-b703-1454d36b30cf.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
I wouldn’t willingly live anyplace else.
Seer of the tapes! Knower of the episodes!
I wouldn’t willingly live anyplace else.
deleted by creator
It will vary by state, but generally:
When only one of the two parties is unwilling to continue the employer-employee relationship, it is obvious who is the moving party. If employment was still available to the claimant and the claimant refused to continue working, then the claimant is the moving party. If the employer will not allow the claimant to continue work, even though the claimant wants to, then the employer is the moving party.
It’s also an English expression.
It doesn’t have to be addition. It could be a hash function, etc.
All participants select their own random whole number and publish it to the group. All participants add all the numbers together. The result is either odd or even (heads/tails) and everyone arrives at the same result independently.
Annual commemorative pastry observance
It’s the second largest multi-ethnic democracy on Earth.
Not only is it normalized, but it’s being weaponized. See, for example, the recent XZ backdoor which was equal parts hacking and a psi-op against the maintainer.
When in doubt, shut up.
The best way to make money in Vegas is to sell light bulbs.
Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn’t address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.
The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.
require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired
That would be a very different kind of law from the one we’re talking about.
That’s a separate issue that could not be addressed with this kind of law anyway.
Can you explain why you feel that would even be necessary?
I’ve actually read the law, so no one has to tell me that it really, actually is about privacy. I know that it is.
deleted by creator
Chew responded to the latest moves in a video posted by the official TikTok account. “Make no mistake, this is a ban,” Chew said in the video. “A ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice.”
Narrator: it wasn’t.
A veto means the resolution does not pass in the first place.
US, China, Russia, France, and the UK have veto power over Security Council resolutions because they are the ones who are called upon to actually enforce Security Council resolutions.
rofl