Jag sätter all min tillit till EU i att andra länders representanter i parlamentet avslår det här förslaget. Vad annat kan man göra, när det är vår egen EU-kommissionär som föreslagit det, vår egen regering som är för det, och vår riksdag är för det, och till och med de i riksdagen som säger att de är mot det, röstar för?
Jag är för EU mest för att Sverige är helt jävla galet.
Vill bara påpeka att det som skedde i justitieutskottet inte verkar ha varit en omröstning. Däremot verkar V:s ledamot ha ställt sig med majoriteten av misstag, något MP sedan hängde på och påstod att de minsann också gjort, men nu ser det ut som att MP:s ledamot kan ha ställt sig enig med majoriteten som nån sorts hämnd för att partiet inte höll med honom angående DCA-avtalet.
Jag håller med dig i det du säger men tycker inte vi ska vara tysta oavsett vad som än händer. Om vi inget säger så är det nästan att vi går med på det.
Verkligen vi får se till att pusha det nästa gång det kommer upp.
Det går "rykten" om att Ungern har tagit på sig att fortsätta driva Belgiens förslag under sitt ordförandeskaps period.
Assange fled to a consulate in London. After years of annoying everyone in that small building he thought it would be smart to unveil sensitive information on the government of that consulate. So, they kicked him out by letting the British police in, now he's getting prison time because fuck freedom of press apparently. Snowden fled to Russia. He would have never seen the light of day if they would have cought him. Probably Guantanamo Bay torture for the rest of his life. So their situations are different, I don't know why that would make a difference to the trust in them.
Both have a strong moral compass, otherwise they wouldn't have done what they did.
I'd rather trust and believe whistleblowers with a very strong moral compass, acting in the interest of the general public, then big tech companies hoarding in our data, breaking copyright and privacy, all for those tasty billions. Those companies only have a moral code towards their own bank account.
I'm not defending the guy but he has liquid on his back and you can barely hear him say something which sounds like she threw shit at me.
If she threw shit at him and hit him with it... I kinda don't blame him.
If he said something nasty, racist homophobic or otherwise insulting to her and then she threw something at him, that makes it a bit more questionable on whether or not she deserved to get hit.
This needs much more context.
That being said, the dude very likely was being a prick and deserved to have shit thrown at him. Still though, if you assault someone first, don't expect to not get it back. Male vs female, male vs male, female vs female and all other things in-between, you start shit, there might be repercussions. Make sure you are prepared to handle that.
Ignoring some bigot (if he started it with words) could have potentially saved her getting her face fucked up.
I'm sure I'll get downvoted for that but my point is still 100% valid.
Edit: For the people that don't seem to understand how the world works. Try this experiment and get back to me. Go out into the city with a cup full of some random liquid (water, soda, whatever) find someone bigger than you and throw it all over them. Please report back and tell me how that worked out for you.
Your points are all conjecture and I don’t think they are valid. If he said some shit to instigate and she threw something at him that doesn’t give him carte Blanche to break her face.
You have no idea whats thrown at you in the moment, and you think its okay to just let someone do that to you? Agreed, punching someone in the face sounds like an overreaction, but I know my reaction to having shit thrown at me would be to immediately make sure it doesn't happen again.
Your are making the point that she didn't deserve to get hit because she assaulted him.
No, it very obviously didn't hurt him but if someone threw a drink at me, I would respond with like treatment or worse. This is the real world, let's treat it like it is and not beat around the bush about it.
As I mentioned before though, it's possible (and likely) that he started the whole thing though. Without more context though we don't know. Either way, if she assaulted him, and he started it, they are both acting stupid, plain and simple.
It doesn't matter if it hurt or not. The point is, if someone were to assault me I would defend myself because I would immediately be put into a position where I need to consider what this person is about to do.
Inb4 "but it didn't hurt, it's just liquid", that isn't the point. Should it be ok for people to just throw liquid on you? Ahh so just go tell the cops so they can do nothing or if you're even less fortunate that you're already dry at that point and that person is long gone.
So what is the right solution here? I seriously doubt you would just walk away if someone walked up to you and threw a cup of whatever in your face.
Inb4 “but it didn’t hurt, it’s just liquid”, that isn’t the point. Should it be ok for people to just throw liquid on you?
Kinda, yeah. It's pretty funny when people throw milkshakes at politicians. Getting wet should not result in violence or police in my opinion, provided the liquid is harmless. It's also somethimg that happens by accident very easily and people overreacting to that and getting violent is a bigger problem than a ruined shirt. Not that i throw liquid on people, i just think people need to calm down, it's not an attempt on your life. I would certainly yell but throwing punches seems like an unnecessary escalation.
I do agree with you on the accidental thing 100%. Accidents happen, but that's different than what is being discussed.
Also, yeah it may seem funny if it happens to some high profile person, but put yourself on the receiving end of a direct intentional thing like that and you aren't going to be overly happy about it. You definitely understand that.
I grew up in some not so great places, got bullied a lot as a kid. I don't bully people as a result but I am a bit more defensive and would be quick to toss a jab and subsequent more if I felt the need was there.
All in all, I do feel that I want to be 100% clear that I'm not defending the guy, I don't know the situation, dude obviously had an advantage and in the brief bit that we see it does kinda seem like they were both instigating the situation.
Yeah I mean if my friend goes into a dark alley piss drunk and ends up getting beat up and robbed. I'm pissed and I'm feeling sorry for my friend and trying to help them. But also like c'mon what the fuck were you thinking.
There's a difference between trying to fight where the problem stems from and handling it in an appropriate manner and getting pissed and throwing a drink at someone.
Throwing a drink at someone and expecting to not get hit is a poor way to look at how the real world works.
I really wish game and film companies would stop sharing trailers on xitter, and people should definitely find a different source before resharing it. We all need to quit driving traffic to Elon's nazi bar.
We'll see tomorrow, but I'm not convinced this wasn't all planned. Negative marketing is a thing, and if they had assets left over from earlier development, it would have been a cheaper trailer to make. People are talking about how absurd the trailer was, and that's a far, far better marketing result than apathy.
As horrified as I was to read this, it is a little exciting to think that I live in a world where Bluetooth radios are so inexpensive that building it that way is cheaper
LOL. Not in this case. Cheap headphones do not pay Apple a dime. And Apple can’t go after every little headphone manufacturer they have real things to deal with like entire knock off Apple Stores that push millions of dollars a month.
In this case, the answer is less insidious. It’s the batteries. These headphones have BT but no batteries, hence why they are wired (need the power).
Two reasons. One, it’s actually expensive to wire up lightning to audio. Because the connection is digital, not analogue like the headphone jack. Two Apple can detect data thru software and even disable it, leaving the headphones useless. Why would they? Because you didn’t apply for their mifi program and pay them. These headphones don’t have data, they just plug directly into power.
To add to it, you probably also have to deal with parts sourcing. You can probably scavenge Bluetooth radios from several generations worth of equipment or get cheap from China. In contrast, a Lightning cable that can turn data to sound is likely really hard to come by.
Bluetooth's digital too, my guy. You need a digital-analog converter either way. It's just that when you use the Lightning port for audio you don't also need a Bluetooth radio. Besides, USB DAC chips are like a dollar.
Also you just proved my point that they only did this to avoid licensing fees.
They are cheaper than batteries. The cost of shipping and adding batteries to the production line. They are volatile and require strict regulation so most cheap manufacturers just don’t want the hassle. That’s why it needs power. It has BT, but no battery.
x.com
Hot