This looks uncomfortable and humiliating. Now if they were to make it in the form of a suppository…

Sending my pots and thrayers 👏

I’d rather be guilty of that than of being the ones who rejected them.

Probably not criminal trespassing, since they are the owner of the property. It may fall under tenant harassment, unauthorized entry, constructive eviction, or other laws that pertain specifically to landlord/tenant relations.

Check to see if there are any local tenant’s rights or advocacy groups in your area that offer free legal consultations. They’d be able to advise you on the local tenant’s rights laws and whether they apply to your situation.

What does it mean, “exact change”?

!shittymoviedetails@lemmy.world

Just stick your hands between your buttocks. That’s nature’s pocket.

Multiple HTTP requests can be performed over a single connection, and not all connections are for HTTP requests in the first place. The only way to know that an HTTP request is being made (or how many) is to actually see the requests.

It would be a privacy nightmare, of course. Either we would all have to install monitoring software on our devices, or we would have to allow ISPs to break HTTPS.

All flags are an expression of opinion. Even the pride flag has different versions that include or exclude different sub-cultures and allies.

This is a case where it’s the government that’s wearing the proverbial cross necklace, not another employee.

Neither are a governmental function. I think that’s the operative comparison to be made here.

We are not an opinion, but I don’t think that’s really a fair summary of my position anyway.

I kind of have to take the plaintiff’s side. The government shouldn’t be flying pride flags any more than they should be installing Nativity scenes. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion being expressed, but about whether the government should be expressing an opinion at all.

And really all he asked for was to work remotely for the month the flags were up, not to have them removed. I think that actually might fall within the “reasonable accommodation” laws he’s invoking here.

What are you suggesting should have been done here?

Joe Satriani’s Crowd Chant was originally going to be called Party on the Enterprise and would have included Trek sound effect samples, but he couldn’t get the licensing to work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCRX-EXR3_U

“Pissing in the soup” doesn’t really work here unless you’re adulterating the software with something malicious.