This is about foreign customers only, so as an attempt to abolish the constitution, it is severely flawed in respecting it enough to keep its distance.
I can't think of any US service I am using that doesn't already require KYC? None of the large providers will let you get far without a credit card, as far as I remember?
Since the discussion here will consider itself mostly with upright revolutionaries being disenfranchised by such insult to their liberties, it is worth noting that when the revolutionaries are foreigners, the US often doesn't have the same incentive to disenfranchise them as it might have for domestic troublemakers.
In fact the US has quite a track record of granting rights to foreigners in excess of what they find at home, and even when it concerns allies: request by European courts and law enforcement are regularly rejected based on US norms when, for example, someone hosts their hat speech blog with an US-only provider.
I have all the love and appreciation in the world for enjoying a weekend spent in configuration files. But I feel the need to state the obvious:
This is a long blog post ending with a preview to "future installments of the guide" to use nix, while almost everything that you need to know with homebrew is `brew install/update/upgrade/uninstall`, and I have rarely run into any trouble with brew, and none at all in recent memory.
In civil law, the roles of plaintiff and defendant are largely interchangeable. If you order food and don't like it, the restaurant might sue you for payment. Or you need to sue the restaurant if you already paid. It's rather arbitrary, being only based on the order of the exchange of food and money.
In any case, take it up the law, because it is as I said: the burden of proof is different, its "preponderance of the evidence", i. e. 50%.
“They’ve decided that picking the cotton is better than refusing to do so”.
Edit, because people share a characteristic with heavy metals: the point is that a “choice” made under economic duress is not made freely. Slavery is an extreme example used to make the point more obvious. The threat of violence used to compel people to work the fields is obviously worse than, but not necessarily qualitatively different from, the threat of abject poverty if one refuses to take low-paying insecure jobs.
As I said, it’s debatable if the guy’s reach needed to be limited, the point you are arguing.
What’s not debatable is that the breathless outrage-bait under discussion misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach with a straw-man argument, and so did you.
Well, first of all, “tweets” don’t “trend”. Terms do. So this description feels off, already.
Next, I wonder, but don’t care enough to look it up, if this guy is adequately summarized by only mentioning his concern for children?
Screw that, I did look him up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pa.... He was one of the people behind the “Great” Barrington Declaration and, kn the early months of the pandemic, argued, among other things, that COVID is rather harmless. He also took money from the airline industry without disclosing as much in his publications.
It’s arguable if Bhattacharya’s reach needed to be limited. What’s really hard to argue is that the thing about children is an adequate characterization of his statements during the pandemic. This is prime evidence that this story is not presenting anything close to a fair interpretation of the documents they have been given, and that you have, unfortunately, fallen for it.
I feel like when you diss journalists, it should generally be for something they actually did wrong, not preemptively based on your imagination.
If they are so terrible, there should be no need to invent stuff.
When people read something like this post, and they are predisposed to the idea, it’ll reinforce their skepticism of „the mainstream media“. If you want to test yourself, make a bet of how many media outlets will run with the story in the manner outlined above, then check in a few days. My prediction: you won’t see it in the NYT, WSJ, BBC, or on CNN.
So… a federal jury found this guy guilty, but here we have a friend of his who is going to be totally neutral in a reevaluation?
So they set out to describe it as „an accident“ because „blameless post-mortems“ are something people really like?
Also this article falls into the trap of trying to sound smart by using, sorry, „by effecting the usage of“ big fancy words. I’ve read Supreme Court transcripts and judgements, and I can understand them. This is overtaxing my buzzword ingestion.
The headline is bullshit. It’s one of dozens of possible measures, it’s a limit only on non-essential trips, and it’s included only in the worst of several levels, which is unlikely to ever be activated.