Finding out people’s salaries is a good thing. It’s how you prevent your bosses from screwing everyone over. Of course that information might be sensitive so don’t go around inquiring willy nilly, but it’s definitely a topic that you can and should sometimes visit.

(I know this is a s*** post so it’s all good but some people don’t realize the value in discussing salaries, and they think it’s something that has to be super secret when that only hurts you, the employee.)

You still have spending wars. Politicians are bought and sold every day, and any large company probably donates to politicians of multiple parties.

I don’t see the problem originating from Congress necessarily being polarized. I think the problem is that corporate and big money interests are too strong, and they fund politicians that will try to divide the people on social issues so that they can distract the people from badness happening on the economic front. In other words, I think we’re seeing a problem with corruption that’s expressing itself as polarization.

Even the term “polarization” can also be used as a trap, because it tends to be used in a way that frames politics as a linear spectrum, and your views are somewhere between these two end points. In reality everything is far more complicated. People have highly nuanced views on many different subjects with good reason, and there’s no way you can easily capture it on one single sliding scale.

Unclear how legit they are. Don’t rush judgment, especially when the victim and his associates are narcissistic liars.

Or rather, define “legitimate”. It matters in a situation like this.

No no, the attempt was to hit theother ear. Symmetry.

Nothing. Discovered mine long before.

Diversity, my friend. What will you do if the 401k doesn’t come through like you want? Bear in mind that the ultra rich and the big banks employ people who are really good at investing money. They have more experience and information than you. They’ll bail themselves, but not you, out in case of disaster.

“Show me the money” is not a good motto for long term savings. Inflation or poor investment can make that money disappear easily enough. Of course you don’t want to get scammed, so oversight is a good idea.

Not quite tho. He has lost in court several times. Paid for it. Forced to be there when the judge ordered it. And we shall see what happens in a few months.

But anyway, it’s no secret that the ultra rich don’t need to obey the law. That’s old news, sad to say.

I know. And many of the comments are coming from the US, so I’m trying to help American readers see what US law would dictate in a similar situation, because they might have instincts that are inconsistent with US law.

Many companies love undocumented workers. Easy to abuse, underpay, overwork. So of course they hate it when those workers can easily get documented or citizenship. Following the law is such an annoyance. Cuts into the profit margin. That is why big business and the nationalists often work together.

The nationalists kinda know they’re getting played to generate corporate profits, but they also enjoy having a target to look down on.

In the US, the 4th Amendment says that’s unconstitutional. Fortunately. Too many dirty pigs out there.

In the US, the cops need RAS to handcuff you. The standard was never and is not “until they know what’s going on”. And RAS depends on the current cop knowledge. Even if they had legal grounds to break into your place, what they see in the next ten seconds is still relevant. For example, if someone said you attacked them with a knife, when the cops see no victim, knife, or blood, their legal authority ceases.

Of course it’s all highly dependent on specific details.

(On traffic stops, often they already have RAS. That’s why they pulled you over. So don’t be fooled by other comments about that topic.)

In the US, property records are public records. Easy to find someone’s address online if you know their full name and the county they own property in.

Go try it!

The legal standard in the U.S. is if there’s exigent circumstances. Detailed 911 calls are typically sufficient to meet that standard. Not always.

Right now, we cannot tell if the officers did anything unlawful. Need the call recording or call logs, plus the body cameras.

(I think the exigent circumstances standard is BS, easily abused, but that is the current law of the land.)

I also like the Milwaukee Roundabout. No recent videos though, sadly. Gotta respect intersections that consistently pwn drivers.

I agree that the 24-hour news cycle is pretty horrendous and leads to a lot of unneeded political badness. At the same time, going back to the old style of political news is also a mistake. Hell, it let Nixon get reelected.

Rather than either of those options, it’s important for people to realize that they are actively consuming the news, and one way to protect themselves from being manipulated is to consume the news in different ways and from different sources. It’s surprisingly easy to do that these days, if you have a couple of different social media accounts or use an RSS reader, for example. Of course there are many other ways. It is our own personal responsibility to be active and aware enough to avoid getting manipulated in predictable ways.

You know the quality is high when there’s a reminder that it’s shitposting. Wonderful.

My company will let me purchase software, but it won’t let me donate to FOSS. Budgeting says it’s “unnecessary”. So screwed up. (A tiny amount money on my end, but still, it would be nice to help out a little.)

It’s curious that you claim privacy and anonymity are clearly differentiable but didn’t bother to define either of them. Is your claim accurate? We have no idea, because we don’t know what you’re talking about.

George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, and Corey Doctorow already covered the basics, and two of those authors did so decades ago. Why are you asking this question now? What is it that you want to hear that they didn’t already say? Or are you asking us whether we’ve read those authors?

You’re the one who brought in a personal political view, and basic history realize your claim, which is why you didn’t actually cite any.

I mean, what’s a good example of cancer culture? If some white guy says something horribly racist, and then he loses an election, he complains about cancel culture. But that’s a good thing, because we don’t want racist bastards in office. Of course he doesn’t see it that way. So he looks for some new term to describe the phenomenon, some way to make himself a victim.

The term itself was created by right wing people who decided to deploy it against those they didn’t favor, as an excuse to justify their own bigotry, but the idea of public shaming and goes back centuries if not millennia. Quite naturally, the establishment has a strong interest in public shaming if it will keep them around longer.