claudiop

I obviously do not support this application of martial law. I pointed at a mask mandate because it fits your dictatorship vision.

I also didn't say a thing about kidnapping. Telling people to "get off a plane" without a justification is not kidnapping. If you say "get off this plane, we think it has a bomb on it" things wouldn't fly any better with people freaking over and having panic attacks. You can do the explaining once people are out of the plane.

So, you can't accept the idea that in very specific circumstances it can be a good thing for cops to tell you to do something without having to reach for a court order? Like an emergency evacuation order that needs to be secret during that very same hour for whatever good reason or the checkpointing of people in a region where you know that a major prison break just happened?

Not talking about the random pig just thinking "hmm, I'm the boss now" out of nowhere; I'm talking about someone like the head of the police forces giving an order indiscriminately that is limited to a temporal scope.

Even things like "masks are mandatory" can be seen as a "muh freedoms" violation.

If you take things to such extremes, can we have the freedom not to have such freedom? Apparently is what the entire world wants except for a few thousand internet folks

And how come one wanting to have a say on their lives is equated with one wanting to have a say on other people's deaths?

Tolerance is about letting other people be and giving them rights, not about letting you decide on other people's being and letting you take their rights.

This is so dead simple existence 101 that one can assume but malice (or an ungodly amount of crayzo ideology) from you.

Hello. I have 4 years of private sector experience. Living with someone else who also does. Both STEM and paid above average for the place we live in (Portugal). Rent is half our bills.

Living alone outside not in a cube and in any place that resembles a city is but impossible. 40 years ago we'd be higher middle class.

The I in IP stands for intelectual; AKA, the clever things they reached with their thoughts. The artificial limitations are not IP, simply mechanisms they included exclusivity. They needn't be clever. if (!apple) { rejectApp(); hideDocs() } is not IP.

Why exactly is this worse?

It is an optional feature that the majority of people will be using, making herd immunity for those who do not

And how exactly do you plan to reach this high quality elite content without search engines?

"[search term] reddit" has been a top search since OpenAI decided to open the SEO bot floodgates.

Didn't they have some of the biggest house prices to income ratios? And wasn't private tutoring out of control in there? And weren't they fighting with almost every single neighbor they have?

Just because it is most of the time bullshit, it doesn't mean that is not a thing ever. The "think of the children" doesn't imply that legit application of child-protection laws are not a thing.

Telegram is for example known for Russian military bloggers, which are, in fact, promoting terrorism.

So, instead of fixing the cesspool we just designate a place for them? Why not just going after the ones committing crimes and state that big public groups must have moderation for basic shit? (Like no death threats and that kind of "moderation", not a "I don't like your opinions)

Alternatively: It is not (and generally not even encrypted) and he just happened to be in contempt.

Plenty of military-oriented and shady-business going in in there.

There's still the possibility that the authorities wanted to go after specific someones with a proper warrant and Durov blocked it. No country on earth goes for that.

We'll get to know the charges soon enough.

What you are trying to point is that in the United States of America (and maybe Canada) you people have coffee that's so expensive that two of them pay for YT premium. You're only missing out on most of the internet (eg. Not the US).

Starbucks is notoriously expensive and nobody refers to it as coffee round here. Starbucks in my first world country is considered something for hipster digital nomads. You can't find them outside areas with tourists as everyone else is happy with "regular" coffee that's literally 10 times cheaper.

Saying that two coffees equate to YouTube premium while using Starbucks as a metric is like saying that a car only costs a watch or two while using a Rolex as the reference watch. If you consider a Rolex to be your reference watch, cool, you're a privileged minority.