It then ruled that the First Amendment does not apply “where a defendant creates unreasonably dangerous conditions, and where his creation of those conditions causes a plaintiff to sustain injuries.”
Did they just make it easier for Trump to be held accountable for Jan 6?
I get that it started 60 years ago with white flight and was exasperated 40 years ago with the consolidation of major changes, but why has their been no progress in correcting this? Why are zoning laws not being updated? Why do grocery store chains think inner cities are riskier? Why are new stores, like the referenced Whole Foods, not lasting? Why the focus on supermarkets instead of smaller neighborhood grocery stores that don't have the same logistic issues?
Those questions are not directed at you. They are more a representation my disappointment and disillusionment. Thank you for the reply.
I guess that I was hoping that there would be more current information and not just an article about how nobody cares so nothing has been done in more than half a century.
Can somebody help me out? The title of the article suggests it will provide insight into the cause of large grocery retailers avoiding certain communities but all I am seeing is talk about the what and nothing about the why. Did I miss it or did I just fall for clickbait?
Yes, but they would be separate accounts (comments, subscribed y communities, messages, etc). I have an account on lemm.ee and lemmy.world which I actively use. It can get a bit annoying making sure that I stay subscribed to the same communities on both, but it's also nice to get different feeds.
Another option would be to stand up your own closed instance, so your account is the only one. That way storage and bandwidth should be minimal enough that you can host at home and also have full control over settings on your instance.
Not lost, but inactive / isolated. As I understand it, when a user on insurance A subscribes to a community, votes, or comments on a community on instance B, that content is copied to insurance A and the two instances will sync their changes together. If instance B shuts down or the two instances defederate, then the content on instance A stays intact, but it no longer syncs with the source of truth.
Is each instance like another person with a server?
Yeah. I would assume that most, if not all, open instances are going through a 3rd party hosting service, but nothing stopping them from being hosted on hardware in somebodies home.
Could that person just shut it down whenever they wanted to?
Yup. Anytime and for any reason. It might cause a moment of disruption, but the beauty of federation is that you can always setup an account on a new instance or create your own.
Are there any companies that have invested in hosting Lemmy/ other fediverse servers?
Yes. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Facebook federating their Threads services. I'm sure that there are others.
See, now that is the type of information that would have been useful in the article. I don't care that the property "included horse stables, a swimming pool and a 10-bedroom guesthouse". I care how somebody got trapped in their car.
Could she not have opened the door or rolled down the window? The article made sure we knew that she went to Harvard and described the event she was attending, but no mention of why she was unable to exit the vehicle. Did she not know how to swim? Was their some obstruction? Did something malfunction? Was she so used to having other people do things for her that it just never occurred to her to do anything for herself?
What do you think I don't care about? You haven't answered my question about what topic you are trying to discuss. Cause it doesn't sound like you are discussing corporations, like TikTok, being dishonest and deceptive to their customers.
Out of curiosity, what is the topic that you are discussing?
I'm discussing TikTok making grandiose, inaccurate and unfounded statements in an attempt to manipulate their users. And I'm attempting to shed light on that attempt.
I don't think that shifting conditions and fluctuations in a market place are damage, I think that it is just business.
destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country
I believe that any creators making a livelihood from social media are not doing it solely from TikTok, they are (or at least should be) diversified across multiple platforms for stability and increased earning potential.
deny artists an audience,”
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to even mean. TikTok is a platform, not an audience. The audience is still there. The artists are still there. A vast multitude of options that are not TikTok exist for connecting those 2 groups. Nothing is being denied.
Basically, as it was before TikTok, so shall it be after TikTok.
Really this is just a big handout to Meta and Google with nothing beyond that of merit
That may be, but TikTok did not argue against the consolidation of social media platforms. That would be a different discussion.
“This will damage millions of businesses, destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country, and deny artists an audience,”
That sounds like an overestimation of their importance.
My understanding is that TikTok did not introduce anything new nor does it offer anything truly unique. They did a major marketing push about 6 years ago to grab market share of an existing and crowded arena, which they have continued to grow. If they go away, the others actors in this space are already poised to fill any "void", without hesitation, until the next social media trend emerges.
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the United States invade Iraq despite the objections of the UN Security Council? That happened, right? Without reprocutions?
If that's the case, I'm wondering who cares about the UN objecting to laws a country passes, within their own borders, that are not human rights violations. What are they going to do? Write a stern letter?
It's not clear why the man wanted so many vaccinations or how he obtained them.
Schober and the team compared the man’s immune responses—measured by his blood antibody levels, the first line of defense against a virus, and T cell levels, which are responsible for the body's longer-term response—to those of a control group of 29 people who had received three COVID-19 shots.
“His immune system was neither positively nor negatively affected," says Schober.
I fixed the article. Somebody accidentally added a bunch of crap that provided no meaningful information.
Yeah, kinda. Except that the laws already exist. So somebody ineligible could fight to be on the ballot (or somebody else could fight to have them removed), which would result in a court case. Which is what just happened.
If SCOTUS had decided to hear Trumps immunity arguments sooner rather than later than there would be a chance of him being ejudicated of insurrection before the election. Until that verdict, he remains eligible since Congress failed to impeach him when they had the chance.
Did they just make it easier for Trump to be held accountable for Jan 6?