I prefer the American version of freedom of speech, which places very strict limits on the government's ability to punish speech. Display of any flag in this way would be protected. We're currently seeing that play out with the US president taking various actions against people who have expressed opinions he doesn't like and getting blocked by the courts at every turn.
That said, Hezbolah is bad and Liam O'Hanna is an asshole for supporting them.
Yes. I could talk about quantum indeterminacy as a scientific argument for it, but fundamentally, I believe in it because I want to[1]. I don't like the idea of being a deterministic machine with a fate I can't influence with active choices. It's not provable either way with the current state of science, so I choose to believe my preferred option is the correct one.
[1] Of course such a statement presumes free will. I think I want to, anyway.
Iv had to deal with plenty of people that just moving the windows task bar from the bottom to the top was enough to make them go full stupid and forget they have been using a PC for 20 years.
It is not impolite to say something like "I'm married, and even if I wasn't, you're underage. We are not dating, and we are not going to date."
She's being very inappropriate in this situation. That isn't really meant to be a harsh judgment of her because she's a kid and kids shouldn't be expected to how to behave yet, especially when they're very new to experiencing feelings of sexual or romantic attraction. Shutting her down firmly (but without any cruelty) will help her learn.
His main objection is that the plaintiffs demanded a preliminary injunction with an extremely short deadline upon which they would consider a lack of ruling to be a "constructive denial" which they would appeal, which is highly irregular. He does not meaningfully address the reason for that irregular action, namely the government's attempts to outrun the judicial process and deport people to El Salvador, from which it claims it cannot return them. Alito claims the courts should rely on the government's statement that it would not deport the plaintiffs before their hearing.
Under normal circumstances, Alito would be correct. The government normally doesn't try to do illegal things before the courts can stop them and it would be inappropriate for a plaintiff to apply the extreme time pressure seen here. These are not normal times and the rest of the court appears to recognize that.
In this context, I imagine it means you're not going to freak out when you see something that isn't Windows or Mac OS. Can you move things around with the file manager? Find the wifi settings? Get files off the external hard drive you just plugged in? That's probably sufficient.
Of course there are dozens of possible file managers and wifi widgets. They could be using any of many distributions with a near infinite combination of software. I'm proficient at Linux by nearly any definition, but I haven't checked out recent versions of desktop environments other than the one I use regularly. As long as you can figure out basic computer stuff on something that looks a little different from what you're used to, you should be fine.
Trump appointed three out of nine justices. Three more were appointed by Republicans (Bush 1 and Bush 2), so a 2/3 majority of justices are considered conservative.
Judicial conservatism, however does not always align with political conservatism. Judicial conservatism tends to mean staying close to the original meaning of the text of the law. Some of Trump's actions require creative interpretations of the law; in the case at hand, Trump wants to use a law meant to expel citizens of an enemy country during a war to deport immigrants he accuses of being members of gangs without allowing them to challenge that action in court.
Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that a creative interpretation of the law should be allowed here; neither is a Trump appointee.
Obviously the forced-reset trigger has pretty much the same effect as a machine gun and common sense suggests that the two should have the same legal status. They don't though because 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) defines a machine gun as:
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
and a firearm with a forced reset trigger does require a separate actuation of the trigger for each shot. It is the place of the congress, not the ATF to update the law.
From what i understand, this works because there are multiple batteries charging at the same time?
That shouldn't make a big difference in charge speed because it doesn't change the ratio between capacity and input power. The difference is likely the silicon anode batteries Krudler mentioned; they're not as easily damaged by fast charge rates as the graphite anodes used in most Li-ion batteries.
It appears phones as old as the Android 8 era can support this and phones that shipped with Android 13 or newer always do. I had the impression it had been universal a little longer.
No, Google is also trying to stop hobbyists running custom builds from accessing services built on their software (the aforementioned SafetyNet). Hackers keep finding ways around this, but Google keeps trying to lock them out.
That's a side effect. If Google really wanted to interfere with hobbyists, they would mandate hardware-based attestation and all the current workarounds would be broken. It would be much harder to create workarounds for that.
If manufacturers had their way, there wouldn’t be any phones for one side.
There's nothing stopping manufacturers from permanently locking the bootloader. Some do and others don't suggesting that the industry does not have a universal preference.
I do think Google wants it to be inconvenient enough to run a version of Android they haven't blessed as one's main phone that it has no chance to become mainstream, but that's about the prospect of an OEM not bundling Google's apps and store, not hobbyists running custom builds. If that sounds like an attempt to use market power to exclude competitors in violation of fair trading laws in a multitude of jurisdictions, you might be on to something.
This is usually coupled with the expectation that I'm going to use some special knowledge to do it rather than just pasting the contents of the error message into a web search and following the simple instructions contained in the first link.
Zak @ Zak @lemmy.world Posts 10Comments 1,247Joined 2 yr. ago
That seems likely to work.