AshDene

On what basis would it?

Surely the government is allowed to teach what courses are run in government run schools by government employees in general. I mean, someone has to, and who else would it be?

Or if you’re referring to the religion aspect of the first amendment… this seems religiously neutral?

The constitution doesn’t ban bad governance, just some particularly easy to enumerate forms of it.

Olive oil?

You wouldn’t live long, but compared to the other options you’re listing…

This is just completely untrue. Musk founded SpaceX from nothing, there was no prior entity he acquired or invested in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX

There are lots of legitimate reasons to dislike Musk, there’s really no need to make up lies about him to justify having an extremely low opinion of him.

deleted by creator

Did you know that Pepsi briefly owned 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer?

Edit: On less of a technicality, the East India Company had something like 250k troops back in 1824.

Yeah, I don’t know what Colorado’s laws are on this in general, but even if it’s technically legal it seems like a huge risk that someone is going to plausibly allege that given the specific facts denying them time off was race/religion/family status/… discrimination. It might be legal (don’t know), but it’s a stupid policy for a number of reasons.

Same as on twitter.

On reddit only reddit knew who you voted for (so long as your preferences were set so that votes weren’t public).

If your accounts are on different instances (with different admins who aren’t sharing logs, it would be weird if they were) then I don’t think there is anything to correlate beyond analyzing the writing style.

AcitivtyPub doesn’t forward on metadata like “what IP address sent this”.

I have to say I’m lowkey dissapointed, it was fun seeing my score bouncing around 0.

I don’t believe so. They’d have to remove identifying information, but my imperfect understanding is outside of that they are allowed to keep the content.

Phrasing it as “spotting potential swatting calls” is approaching it from the wrong direction.

Instead it should be “confirming that there is probable cause before moving in with weapons”. A single call should not probable cause make.

Youtube is allowed to encourage you to say things. That’s guaranteed by the free speech rights of the people that make up youtube.

What I expected:

Randos asking for it on /r/redditrequest

And if that didn’t work out poorly paid workers in some cheap country somewhere, like facebook does.

Thanks, I love it.

Rather I think they’re diplomats in senior government rolls, because they’re at the G7. In US terms think state department, not DOD.

Regardless the exact nature of the other meeting isn’t the point. The general fact that DEI work is usually not the most impactful work you can be doing in terms of personal development and growth in the organization is, so saying that under-represented people need to lead it harms under-represented people.

And where do you think a woman has more power? In a meeting on women’s empowerment, or a meeting on… I don’t know… how many weapons to give to Ukraine?

If you pull women away from the latter to send them to the former that is negatively impacting women’s empowerment.

Like I said, the optics in this case make it worth it anyways, but it is not a clear cut rule where that is always the case, and it’s easy to do it too often.

We still use DDT to control malaria.

I mean, if genders are equal then an equal number of men and women should be leading in matters of gender equality.

And there are real issues that stem from this. If you make it so that under-represented people always lead initiatives to improve representation, you are adding workload to the under-represented people involved in the <activity> (governance in this case), and making them even more under-represented in the rest of the activity.

The optics in this case are bad enough that the downsides of sending a candidate chosen in a gender-neutral fashion outweigh the upsides, but I’d definitely advise being cautious about assuming that’s always the case. If anything it’s the exception, not the rule.

Needs an “allegedly”, apart from being a questionable source in the first place (as a random social media account, nothing against the person running it), the source you quoted makes it clear that they aren’t confident in their own source.

It will change things too, not for reddit, but for competitors (like kbin).

A tiny site can only grow so fast, at some point things start breaking (both technically and as a community) and users stop joining, but as sites grow bigger they also gain the ability to grow faster.

The protest means that every possible alternative to reddit has been growing as fast as it can reasonably support. That’s probably not fast enough to hurt reddit this time, but next time it might be.