I think most country’s police would be pulling out warrants to search your house when you’re advocating for violent terrorism.
I would certainly hope so
I think most country’s police would be pulling out warrants to search your house when you’re advocating for violent terrorism.
I would certainly hope so
First: fuck Israel’s Genocide in Gaza.
Second: this article is extremely biased, to the point that it is basically misinformation. The people they are talking about are Yasemin Acar and Salah Said, infamous protesters in Berlin. Here is a translated part of a german newspaper, video evidence is linked in the article:
Speaking at a demonstration in January, she literally threatened: “If violence is the only option, we will use it.” She then celebrated the attacks by the Islamist Houthi militia: “Yemen, Yemen we are proud, turn another ship around.”
Of course the police is searching the homes of people that threaten violence themselves and encourage terrorist attacks on civilian ships.
Don’t need an additional thing by law. 😑
You still don’t need it if you don’t spy on your users. Cookie banners are not required. Asking for consent before collecting data that goes beyond the necessary minimum is required.
I have a genuine question that maybe somebody with more economic knowledge can educate me in:
How is continuing the sale in Russia helping Russia? As I understand Russia is gaining money on the sales taxes, etc. but the rest of the earnings will go to the US parent company, which cannot be taxed directly by Russia. If Pepsi backs out, wouldn’t operations just be replaced by a rebranded russian company, where all of the earnings would be under russian “sphere of influence”?
I genuinely do not understand why Pepsi backing out is considered bad for Russia. I thought countries generally prefer national companies over foreign ones.
The dev said that the framework is completely disabled once you purchase the ad-free version. Various people also confirmed that statement with anti-tracking software.
I don’t think the article is trying to claim that labor exploitation is new.
This part directly admits that it is a very old phenomenon:
It’s been noted, and correctly so, that entertainment industry labor disputes often erupt when there’s a change in technology — from theaters screening projected films to the cathode ray tube of the home television, say, or the rise of YouTube and other online content in the 2000s — and that happens for a reason. Historically, executives and management use a disorienting new technology to try to justify lowering wages of their workers, and they have done so since the days of the Industrial Revolution.
As I understood it, the article just wants to explain why this is happening now, because historically it seems to happen in waves.
The main purpose of a car is “driving”, which you can do. Unless you cannot start a Tesla without LTE, which would be very stupid.
You can also always strip a car for parts. Teslas are not magically safe from that.