Arthur Besse
cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
- 483 Posts
- 712 Comments
odd that their username is
@icegov.bsky.socialinstead of@ice.gov… i guess nobody on their social media team knows how to configure a DNS record or create a.well-knowntextfile.
This tweet is conflating two different countries, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, using their names interchangeably. The linked article is solely about the latter.
4·5 days agothe fact that they know your plate number is different than knowing if you (or someone) queried a website about which police queried flock about it
reposting my comment from the thread yesterday:
reposting my comment in a thread last month about this:
in b4 haveibeenhaveibeenflocked.
they have a list of their current collection of 239 .csv files but sadly don’t appear to let you actually download them to query offline
they now have 519 sources, some of which are downloadable from muckrock but many aren’t.
i still don’t understand why this website isn’t open source and open data, and i strongly recommend thinking carefully about it (eg, thinking about if you’d mind if the existence of your query becomes known to police and/or the public) before deciding if you want to type a given plate number in to it.
also, reposting my comment in a thread last month about this:
in b4 haveibeenhaveibeenflocked.
they have a list of their current collection of 239 .csv files but sadly don’t appear to let you actually download them to query offline
they now have 519 sources, some of which are downloadable from muckrock but many aren’t.
i still don’t understand why this website isn’t open source and open data, and i strongly recommend thinking carefully about it (eg, thinking about if you’d mind if the existence of your query becomes known to police and/or the public) before deciding if you want to type a given plate number in to it.
I found a slightly higher res version; it’s west 🙄
In this slightly higher-res copy, it does appear to be “MS13”. (Which makes about as much sense as labeling Uruguay “west”…)
for anyone wondering if this actually happened, it did. (in 2019)
Luckily it was just a chmod
that can still render a system unbootable 😅
Use Ctrl-Z
followed by
jobs,kill %1, etc
32·10 days ago
12·10 days ago
2·11 days agoIt’s very clear from the video that she never hit him and he shot her in the face while she was going less than 5mph.
in this grainy video the ny post is choosing to show without the others, i’d say it is somewhat less than very clear what happened. but it becomes very clear when you see this side by side with the other videos from much closer by.
the new york times has a good video which includes this one and others here (and unlike many things there it is not paywalled)
You’re confusing Rep. Robin Kelly with Sen. Mark Kelly.
easier to create a “guest” network to connect those appliances to
I guess you missed my earlier comment in this thread; to reiterate: some devices will now get online via your neighbors’ devices even if you don’t give them wifi access.
How to remove the bot flag ?
In the web interface, click your username, then settings, then uncheck the “bot account” checkbox, and click save.
Maybe because I use VPN. Reddit doesn’t allow VPN and lemmy too
the lemmy instance you’re using does allow VPNs.
In Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), the Court sustained a conviction under a federal statute punishing the mailing of “obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy . . .” materials. The key to that holding was the Court’s rejection of the claim that obscene materials were protected by the First Amendment. Five Justices joined in the opinion stating:
"All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance – unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion – have the full protection of the [First Amendment] guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. . . . This is the same judgment expressed by this Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 315 U. S. 571-572: "
". . . There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene. . . . It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ."
[Emphasis by Court in Roth opinion.]