

These aren’t all options for the same question. They’re drop downs for four different questions. Two of those questions OP answers as “other”, but they aren’t the same.


These aren’t all options for the same question. They’re drop downs for four different questions. Two of those questions OP answers as “other”, but they aren’t the same.


Usually inheritance tax is only for people who are quite wealthy. Most places the average person passes down what they own without any significant tax. It’s only when you control well more wealth than you actually earned (the ultra wealthy did not get their wealth through their labor) where there’s any significant taxation. I don’t know why you’d be against this, except for the “temporarily displaced billionaire” mentality. It is a way to redistribute unearned wealth, and attempting to make who you’re born to not the determination for success, and that’s a good thing.


Yeah… No. A lot of the coast guard’s job is maritime safety. They certify life jackets, ensure vessels are safe, rescue people in danger on the water (including lakes and rivers), and a lot more. They also check port security. Most of their job is internal, even by your definition. Some of it is off the coast, which is still in the territorial waters, so still internal.


Yes, they still do good, hence the requests for their aid. The Trump adm. just sucks.


The Coast Guard is largely good, and obviously FEMA. But I agree, shut the DHS down and move those functions elsewhere.


The reasoning, I assume, is that they deal with issues internal to the nation. There’s some logic to that, but I think I’m with you that it largely doesn’t make sense.
As the other comment says, use TLDR. it doesn’t tell you everything, but it does usually explain the most common uses. If you need something more advanced than you need to do more research anyway.
Good UX is the best, whether that’s CLI or GUI. UX is under-appreciated.
If you could profit from it, Lemmy would be a hell hole in an instant. I’m happy that “karma” doesn’t even really matter here at all.
Sure, a lot of people use it, because it exists. How many of those people would actually say it’s a requirement to be built into it though? There’s plenty of other options for screen sharing they could use. I don’t know though. Maybe a lot of people actually do consider it a critical feature. I doubt it though. I’ve used it a few times with my group, but it’s only ever a “do you want to see this?” It’s just a bonus, not a requirement.
I would bet on the screen sharing not being that big of a requirement for most people. Voice and text chats though? Yeah, that’s the minimum.
It doesn’t matter. This is all just vice signaling. They just need to tell their base how much of a racist asshole they are. What actually happened, what they said, and what effect their actions could achieve aren’t the point.
Thinking that’s low is insane. What other thing can you get more than 1/3 of the nation to participate in? Personally, I didn’t watch it, and I never do. From my perspective, 1/3 seems high, not low.
This is literally just the same thing the military uses, but with descriptions changed to LEOs. Still maybe useful, but not as useful. The utility here is the most relevant information comes first, and it keeps things organized. You can start responding before all the information is relayed. It’s important for radio communications in a battlefield setting. If you’re making a post online we’ll after anything is actionable, you can safely ignore this. Just post the information in the most informative way you can.


It’s funny you mention the VC funding. As far as I can tell, it’s only made it worse. Discord would have done great if they just kept expectations low. Instead, they’re now expected to create massive returns. That must come at the cost of consumers. I hope consumers get tired of it and leave, or someone else comes offering the simple service Discord used to provide.


That’s not really ever going to be a politician. Any figurehead for a social movement, that I know of, has not been an elected official. They have a role to play, but it isn’t that one, and I don’t know why you people keep expecting it to be. You can’t really be an elected official and a figurehead of change. They are practically mutually exclusive.
For an example, MLK Jr. was viewed pretty poorly by society at large. The media said he started riots, and things like that. He’d never be elected if he ran for office (at least, above a minor local role). You can’t be divisive and get elected, and it is divisive to say many things we think of as common sense. Her job is to make that more normal, not to take the extreme stance we want.


I don’t think anyone is expecting them to. They are probably hoping they will though. I don’t even live there, but I have heard their leaders say things that sound like they would use the police to protect them. I don’t know if they actually want to or not, and the police aren’t cooperating, or if it was just words. I’m sure most people expect the police to do what they always do though regardless.


The point is that it skirts the law. You can’t really make it illegal because it is a way of subverting legality. If they legally obtain the evidence then it’s legally obtained. If they happened to get to that point through extra-legal means that doesn’t really matter, as long as the end result is legal. Maybe you could argue in court that they only got there because of extra-legal actions, but they can argue the opposite. If this helps them look in the right spot for illegal actions, who’s to say that them looking there couldn’t have happened purely by chance?


Saying that he may (probably will) illegally run is not conceding ground. It’s preparing for the future. If you nievely assume he’s just going to follow the law then you will be unprepared for when he doesn’t.
I have seen them saying similar things. Not this exactly, but saying that AOC is a liberal because she won’t take the most extreme positions. Even if she believed in those positions, which I’m sure she does some of them, it’d be political suicide to stand that ground. They want politician-activists. Those jobs are practically mutually exclusive, but they’re too dumb to realize it. I can’t think of a single activist leader who was also an elected official.