Melllvar

Article 5 doesn’t oblige members to take any particular action. It only says that an attack on one is an attack on all, and leaves it to each member to decide what actions, if any, they will take in response.

This is somewhat similar to how Nicaraguan sign language was developed. Basically, kids at a school for the deaf invented it.

Apartment superintendent. $62k plus free rent and utilities.

Looks like compatibility hacks for various websites.

Interventions - are deeper modifications to make sites compatible. Firefox may modify certain code used on these sites to enforce compatibility. Each compatibility modification links to the bug on Bugzilla@Mozilla; click on the link to look up information about the underlying issue.

User Agent Override - change the user agent of Firefox when connections to certain sites are made.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Compatibility/UA_Override_&_Interventions_Testing

Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.

Today, the US is withholding billions of dollars in Afghan assets, cutting off a crucial economic lifeline for the people of Afghanistan.

What assets are they talking about here?

I’m not familiar with the idiom “spitting on the wrong horn.” Here’s the context of the quote:

But weigh this [the evils of liberty] against the oppression of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem [“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”]. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

I feel like you’re arguing a point I haven’t taken a position on. I’m only saying that arrests like this seem insane to an American sensibility.

The conservatives gave it the power to prosecute people for protesting climate change and made it inadmissible evidence for them to explain the reasons for their protest

But I will say that changing the law like that is also insane to an American sensibility.

It’s less about thinking she shouldn’t be punished for her speech, and more about thinking that the state shouldn’t have the power to punish speech. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

It’s not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.

I’m not confusing them. But I’m also not a fan of using the power if the state to punish people I disagree with, even if they say vile things. Such power will inevitably be abused, turned against me, etc.

It’s safer in the long run to preserve free speech and expression, even if it means people get away with being asshats.

I don’t think that would do a lot in terms of protecting unpopular speech.

The problem is in who decides what speech should be punished.

The value of the DNS is that we all use the same one. You can declare independence, but you’d lose out on that value.

The building manager should (and may be legally required to) have a fire department approved emergency plan that specifically addresses this question. Usually, the plan will be for you to await rescue.

A modern, up-to-code high rise building will have designated “places of refuge” that are designed to withstand heat and smoke, such as a pressurized stairwell with fire doors. In older buildings that don’t have something like that, the plan might call for disabled people to go to the nearest (unprotected) stairway, or it might call for them to remain in their office/apartment and “defend in place”. If possible, call 911 (or equivalent) to notify rescuers of your location.

It’s the second largest multi-ethnic democracy on Earth.

That’s the opposite of what the court said.

Well, no. The courts struck down Trump’s Tiktok ban because he used an executive order that overstepped his authority.

Tiktok has been a subject of national security concerns since at least 2020.