BambiDiego @ BambiDiego @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

136

Joined

2 yr. ago

Because they have Air Conditioning.

The thing they should have had for the last 40 years. With record breaking heat year after year it should be hazard pay without ac

This is the problem.

I needed a car battery the other day and just wanted to know if it was in stock because it's a little uncommon. I went online, it said they did, went to the store, they didn't, told me to call and verify because online updates overnight.

I called 4 different stores, nobody answered the first 3, 4th one rang forever, then an auto answering thing kept me for 5 minutes and when no option helped me it said "try again later, goodbye."

You didn't misremember, it was a scholarly discussion point that spread too far before it got debunked, like how some people still believe the "gum stays inside you for 7 years"

I was talking with my girlfriend and Tar Shampoo came up, and I said "I don't even know exactly what that is used for other than dramatically killing off a horse" and she hung up on me.

It's a joke from this dude

https://youtu.be/bXdBzpRDR5I?si=jHppzcAmgUE5YynL

But what if they mutate?!

It's a common thing in many countries. It's, among other things, a liability issue.

If your "country #1" company does business in "country #2" then what laws apply to them?

In order to distinguish clear lines what "country #2" requires is a representative for the company to be in the country. If the company breaks "country #2"'s laws then the representative is liable for it.

Generally to be a representative you have to have a measurable stake in the transaction, you can't just be a random Jimbo, so it usually falls to a law firm (or an entity that works with one), mainly because if you need people to help your company follow the law, then they should know the law.

If the company breaks the law, the firm has to deal with that, so it's a risk for them.

In this case, X needed that representative, either they couldn't or wouldn't find one, therefore Brazil said "we can't hold you accountable to our laws, so get out of our country."

I'm super, MEGA, oversimplifying, and I'm no expert, but this is my best understanding.

They require a representative in order to establish a chain of responsibility that deals with crime, censorship, social health (lol), public relations, etc.

It does come down to a combination of size, influence, services rendered, and other factors.

He could put a random kid in charge but it would make it worse, like putting a busboy in a chef's hat during Rush hour.

I mean, you're being facetious, but no, the law being "your company must have a legal representative to be within our borders"

X was told about it, given a deadline, they missed the deadline, they can't be in Brazil

Actions have consequences

Because they broke the law.

No, I don't believe the popular opinion is inherently the right one.

I'm not making appeals to popular opinion, my initial, and only, stance is that "free speech" is not the same as "consequence-free speech."

I don't know...

My list goes:

1. Their toilet paper
2. I might criticize Putin
3. I might criticize the government

Makes sense, the 90's turned everything edgy.

I'm a fan of the third one, 2022's "Piggy"

Lemmy has reminded me that many, MANY people stopped paying attention in class after 5th grade and considered "Animal Farm" a long and confusing read.

1 "Wife's entree"

3 "Meatballs Order"

"how the hell do you know what I want?"

That's an inherently aggressive statement.

It's fine, but no reasonable person would think much differently.

Also, generalizing me with "you all" is a defensive catch-all to be dismissive of my point without actually making a stand for your own values.

It's just a you-and-me conversation right now

Read: "contextually" and "sounds more like"

If you don't like how you're being called out then you should be introspective into why a generic statement made you so upset.

It's not gaslighting when there's a straight line of evidence.

To the wider world it looks like this: "Why do people think I don't like dogs?! Just because I said I don't like that you can't kick dogs without getting a ticket nowadays! I didn't kick any, I'm just saying!"

Define "free speech," because contextually what you want sounds more like "speech without consequence" which is not the same thing, but rather a veil of plausible deniability in which to hide in, while being hateful.

Censorship isn't the same as consequences.

It's more that they have weaker muscles so they come pretenderized.