I dual booted my study pc. Well technically I did. I didn’t use windows for a few months without thinking about it and by then I was too afraid of windows corrupting my linux if I ever booted it. So I effectively just had a Linux machine with half half the disk space. Never had a problem with it though.

The first one’s probably won’t be. But I don’t think it’s too far off. I expect the first ones to be some random non white people who commited some indefensible crimes, or at least are accused of doing so. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go for people with terrorism charges so the next batch can be accused of terrorism as well to make the leap seem smaller. That they now define vandalism against tesla as terrorism will just help murky the waters to make the life sentence without judge or jury seem more palatable than it is every step of the way.

Respect? Nah we’re literally calling the US a circus and rawing mad in our news articles now.
— rest of the world

That’s the thing with calling the imprisonment in a foreign country “deportation”. It really muddies the water and makes it very easy for people to have an image of people being sent home, when in fact they send them to life in prison, so bad even the US doesn’t allow it yet. I hope they mean the former but fear the latter is more likely.

You fooled me into thinking this post was just a hidden 4974 reference. Really cool write up, I didn’t question it being an actually existing article until reading the replies.

Unfortunately, with all the capitulations that happened, I find it more likely that other firms will preemptively try to get in his good graces or at least keep a low profile if they haven’t already represented an enemy of Trump.

I mean you have had more constitutional crises each month since Trump’s inauguration than you had in a full presidential term before that. The massive power grab the executive is performing is one thing, but that the president at the same time cannot be trusted to comply with court orders and openly goes after critics and his opposition.

What would you call a ruler that cannot be prosecuted for anything they do, weaponizes the courts against dissenting voices, turns their back on allies in favor of dictators, and whose closest allies break laws regulating them weekly without consequences? This is the reality currently. All that really differentiates him from a clear dictator is also breaking the law on term limits, not leaving office when required as he already tried and failed in his first term.

As far as I remember it was a two part protection. Any official act, no matter the intent, is protected. So as one dissenting justice pointed out, ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival could be protected as it falls within the powers of the president to direct the military. Besides that, any criminal action outside of that overly broad protection still cannot be prosecuted using any evidence that comes from the actions of the president in their capacity as such. So if the president has a phone call logged in official records in which they outline or perform an illegal act, those logs will be inadmissible in court, only evidence reltaed to the president as a private individual is admissible. The stormy daniels case had to throw out evidence because of this, despite being related to crimes committed before the election even.

Obligatory disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and working off of memory. I might misunderstand or misremember some of this.

Ø - the 27th letter of the danish alfabet
Ø - the danish word for island

Yeah I recognized the german as being equivalent to the danish bjørnetjeneste, which also means bear service or slightly more accurately a bear favor.

The South Schleswig Danish minority have been mentioned in every new year’s speech I can remember. It’s basically part of acknowledging everyone who feels ties to the kingdom of Denmark. Near the german border there is a danish minority in Germany and a german minority in Denmark. And to my understanding as someone not living near there it is a respected cultural thing on both sides. It is not something about laying claim to it. In this particular speech the very next sentence is about the king and queen feeling just what you quoted during their visit those places that year and how they are looking forward to visiting the Faroese islands. For context the king was crowned in 2024 so this was commentary on the first royal visit of the new reagents.

As others have pointed out they have valid grievances and good reason to want independence. As a dane I only learned about the non-consensual and secretive implantation of UID’s in women and girls that had been going on a few decades ago. Learning about that and other systemic issues they have dealt with I can not begrudge them wanting independence. Whether they seek it or decide to stay, I hope they have a brighter future ahead of them and that Denmark will support that as best we are able.

They basically did the same thing the Satanic Temple often does. Use the rules republicans make thinking only they will benefit. When they are used by the other side as well it has a funny way of causing a reevaluation of if it should in fact be legal after all. My understanding is that CAH made a sort of parody of Musks trick although doing it in a slightly more careful way to make sure that any legal action against them would apply more broadly. I don’t think it’s good that vote buying is a thing, but equating the satirical protest campaign with the actual thing being pushed against is unfair in my opinion. You can argue if they go about it the right way or not but legitimizing the original offense by pointing out people cheered at the counter campaign opposing musk using the same tool and humor feels disingenuous.

If you look her up you will see that this is one of her more tame takes unfortunately. At least this is not about her views on women’s place in marriage or the rights a husband supposedly has to their wives body, regardless of consent. I can’t help but feel a little sad for her though. From her recounting of her life it sounds like she married a man she didn’t love because that’s what she was supposed to do. After over a decade of miserable marriage she broke and saw it as her duty to be servile in all things to a man she was never really attracted to and convinced herself that happiness is to live that submissive life in deference to a man in all things. If it was the story of someone who got out and found a life outside those oppressive beliefs it would be a cautionary tale, but she sees it as the recipe for a good biblical life.

Non native English speaker here with a genuine question; wouldn’t “telling the students whom I married” mean that the teacher married the students instead of telling students about their spouse?

I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.

Unfortunately I am still unable to find any stories that tells what happens to the Hamas members after their surrender. I’m unsure if they get treated well or are sent to the same facilities in which there are reports of human rights violations amounting to psykological and physical torture.

I did find some examples of successful surenders, but nothing where hostages were explicitly mentioned to have sweetened the deal of surrender.
I do believe you may be right but I have been unable to verify it myself.

Are there any examples of it being used successfully and the aftermath of it? This is a genuine question stemming from my own ignorance on the subject. I would really like for that to be a good way of handeling situations where hostages are released, but I could easily understand why a member of Hamas might have reservations if they do not have reason to trust the system.
If there is good reason to trust it I will agree that that would have been a viable and good way out and should have been used.

To me it sounded like they were specifically pushing against a claim that Hamas offered to free everyone. They pointed out that they only said civilians and as not all hostages would be considered civilians not all hostages would have been freed as another commenter claimed.

I still see it as them pushing back against an “Hamas was good actually” sentiment, arguing that Hamas was not as good as implied due to a careful reading of the statement and an assessment of the hostages and whether all were civilian or would be considered civilian by Hamas.

There is a greater context, but the thread in which this was written the context was a push back against claims portraying Hamas favorably.

Do you really believe that any member of hamas would be safe just because they let some hostages go? How would that work? Should they surrender themselves to the IDF while delivering the hostages, just notify them of where they are so they won’t be bombed or how would that all work?