A lot of human traffickers are Mexican, especially in the South West. Should probably ban Mexicans as well, just to be safe I guess.
Oh, and most mass shooters are white men, should probably ban them.
Gangbangers are another problem you mentioned, let's just go ahead and ban every male 18-28.
Prostitutes also a problem? Let's ban all females 18-32.
You're working backwards from a terrible policy, banning people for having shitty political views, and then justifying it by saying, "Well, they probably committed sex crimes because they're creepy".
Ban them for bad actions, not bad thoughts.
I wasn't aware that sex trafficking and gangbanging were just considered acts of political extremism.
Because that's what I'm concerned about - banning people for the thought crimes of having shitty politics, which is something this team clearly engaged in.
I can't speak to any other role they played in preventing actual criminal activity, like you described, but those would be perfect examples of the types of people that should be banned.
But if your argument is that actual crime and "pre-crime" or "thought crimes" are the same, well, that's pretty Orwellian and something I strongly disagree with.
This sounds Orwellian.
I understand the justification for these teams on social media because of their role, and their desire to be advertising friendly.
But a public company like AirBnB should not be legally allowed to ban people solely based on their political views, even if they suck.
Ban them for their actions, but not for Minority Report Pre-Crime.
These are squad level ground launched air to ground munitions i.e. they're small enough to be carried by infantry units and have the explosive charge more akin to antitank munitions.
It has been black and white, since inception. Just on behalf of the federal government and those "complexities" you listed.
This is what nuance and the shading of gray looks like: science showing the other side of these projects, and the extreme costs which have primarily been borne by the indigenous tribes in the region.
Damnit. I hate when my local city government's finances are too fucked to pay the energy bill, but still have money for military weapons procurement.
Wait a minute....local city governments are able to purchase air launched cruise missiles and anti-tank weapons?!?! And they can export them to?!?!
Dude I think you might be onto something, that is pretty wild...makes you wonder what the dog catcher is really up to... probably moonlights with gig economy wetwork.
...it's a monarchy.
If anyone you read, or know, ever refers to a monarchy as progressive, you can immediately disregard everything they ever write, or say.
The only context where it's at least explainable would be in a limited to direct comparison between Jordan and the other regional monarchs with large petroleum reserves.
Did you just blame Trump for a Biden appointment?
Because my comment was specifically about a Biden appointment to the FAA....But if you're looking for who to blame for the FAA being shit, well that goes back a heck of a lot further, and it's a bipartisan affair.
No, please don't expand the horrific practice of labeling of people as terrorists to use as a scarlet letter and help the FBI/DOJ get around those peski civil liberties.
The equitable answer isn't to expand the War on Terror to include more whites, it's to end it and repeal the unconstitutional laws that passed to support it.
Yes, my open salvo was directed at the Whitaker.
Also, I'm pretty sure OP is an article bot, so don't think they'd take notice, or offense, regardless lol.
Lemmy.world communities tend to be less tolerable of any direct Biden criticism, at least in my experience. Although maybe they thought I was directing that opener at OP.
Get fucked. He has spent his whole professional career being an airline industry suit, which is why he was placed at the FAA by Biden: he's another industry plant in an completey captured regulator, by an industry captured government.
All he's doing is stating the obvious because the cats out of the bag. Don't hold your breath for this lifelong airline industry executive to be some savior or rebuilder of an independent FAA.
Whitaker began his aviation career as a litigator, then as assistant general counsel of international and regulatory affairs at Trans World Airlines (TWA). He spent 15 years at United Airlines in a variety of roles as director, vice president and senior vice president. His portfolio at the airline included commercial alliances and joint ventures, international and regulatory affairs, and strategic counsel to the chairman and chief executive officer on international matters.Whitaker served as Group CEO of InterGlobe Enterprises.There, he oversaw strategy and operations for four affiliate travel companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Whitaker_(government_official)
Wait....you don't audit every package and dependency before you compile and install?
That's crazy risky my man.
Me? I know security and take it seriously, unlike some people here. I'm actually almost done with my audit and should be ready to finally boot Fedora 8 within the next 6-8 months.
You can categorize any smaller country as a pawn when they're placed between two competing powers, but they often really don't have much of a choice in that.
And TBF Castro wanted to push the Cuban missile crisis a hell of a lot further then then Khrushchev was willing to. So maybe more pitbull than pawn, at least for a time.
But real talk, America has horribly exploited and abused Cuba since the Spanish-American war, and let's just say, still lightly meddled in their affairs for nearly 50 years prior to the post war occupation.
So getting your feels up in a twist about Russia managing to sail a handful of warships to Cuba, is kinda petty. Especially considering that it's even odds that the fucking engines catch fire on the return trip.
I'll wait for the financial analysts that I both trust, and I know hate Musk, before I have any confidence in answering that question.
But... my best uninformed guess is that it's less fanboy worship, and more fear that Musk is the only thing propping up the insane stock valuation.
I'm assuming that Musk has a complex web of possibly illegal and highly engineered financial instruments that keep that stock pumping, or at least, not crashing - yet.
Maybe those who voted to approve might be aware, or involved, in that house of cards and believe removing Musk would be akin to blowing on it.
But I'm just pulling all of this out of my ass, so who knows...
It might be as simple as the majority of Tesla shareholders who voted to approve, including the institutional ones, are really just submental morons.
This was an easy election year punt.
The rulings in this case were made by an out of pocket judge and an appellate court district that's gone off the fucking rails, legally speaking.
If it wasn't an election year, SCOTUS might have disregarded all that and plowed ahead anyways.
However, both Alito and Thomas are likely wanting to retire, and probably will if Trump gets back in office.
Those desires, combined with how the last abortion ruling hurt the GOP electorally, made this an easy decision for them.
Actually....that makes a lot more sense and I don't recall that being brought up in article, but maybe I missed it.
I would say that elections are public affairs, and have widespread coverage, including public polling data, but I can see the analogy to insider trading.
Even if the only one's hurt here are the bookies, it's probably not an activity that should be publicly accepted as normal.
Did I miss the part where the bet was something oddly specific where the aide could actually significantly impact akin to shaving points, or throwing a fight...?
Because it just says he bet on the general election, which honestly feels relatively harmless in the context of a society with widespread legalized gambling.
Not that I'd shed any tears over a Sunak aide getting fucked by any legal process, including a dubious one.
Can someone tell me if I'm missed something here?
I don't think they're making a moral argument, but pointing out the reality of the situation as it stands.
This is a problem that can only be fixed through legislation and aggressive enforcement backed by large punitive actions.
Until that happens, it's better to acknowledge and understand the reality of the situation, than to believe that a morally righteous condemnation will somehow unmake that reality.
It sucks. I agree with your philosophical stance, except for the payment for personal data, as I'd prefer a complete opt-out. However, none of that changes where we're at right now.