It’s hardly worthy of being called a bluff.

Everyone knows Trump would just force a Russian victory. He could do that just by refusing further support for Ukraine.

Harris said it in the debate.

Everyone knows he can be bought with favours.

Was that a legit question?

The answer seems kinda obvious.

It took you 3 days to come up with this witty retort? I’m so disappointed.

That’s my expectation.

He’s not shown any indication that he’s capable of any other strategy. When cornered he always seems to double down rather than any kind of finesse.

One is online.

Sure mate.

You’re suggesting that showing videos in a town square is the same as posting in Twitter? They’re not the same, obviously.

It’s complex and I don’t have the answers. My comment is merely hilighting the conflict between these 2 ideals… governments shouldn’t whether or not specific content is ok, but companies shouldn’t provide content which is clearly unacceptable.

If xitter didn’t provide that content the government wouldn’t have to intervene.

If the government does intervene it reduces the barrier for them to intervene in future.

I’m arguing that the risk is so minimal that no one bothers mitigating it.

I might get shot today, yet I’m not wearing a ballistics vest.

Everything you’ve listed is an absurd over statement.

often attack men over women, or their ego, or their fragile state of mind has been disrupted momentarily or whatever other trivial reason men feel justified attacking people.

This is simply not the reality I live in. I’ve never known someone to attack someone over a woman, nor their fragile state of mind?

Driving in my car = men are more likely to participate in road rage At work = men are more likely to commit violence at work than women At home = men are most likely to break and enter occupied homes In public = men are most likely to be the perpetrator of a public mass shooting public shooting.

I’ve certainly never experienced any of this and while mass shootings and robberies do occur they’re so rare that being a victim of such a crime is not a tangible risk.

Honestly you’re more likely tripping over your shoelace and dying than any of these things actually happening.

I’m quite conflicted about this.

I hate musk. Hate twitter. Hate that people were sharing videos of a terrorist attack.

That said, I suspect that this was something of a test case, with the regulator flexing their censorship muscle, and I’m glad it didn’t work out.

It’s also disappointing that her kids were doxxed, I don’t condone that at all… but “just doing my job” is not a reasonable defence when you have a shitty job strategising how to corrode privacy.

Sure mate.

It’s patently absurd to suggest that all women fear for their personal safety “all of the time” when they leave the house.

Sure, there’s a very few places in the world where that may be true, but it certainly is not generally true.

I think your comment says more about you than it does about me.

Disingenuous at best.

People need to be cautious around people.

The vast majority of men do not “prey” on anything, including women.

Most of the replies you’ve received are trying to explain that saying “men” are what is wrong with “people” is a generalisation that is unhelpful and harms all men.

It’s true that the perp is a man, and it’s also true that most violence against women is perpetrated by men. However, that doesn’t mean there’s a causal link between being a man and assaulting women.

It’s much more likely that the addressable causes underlying this “man’s” actions are poverty, lack of mental health support, and cultural norms including but not limited to religion.

When you suggest that “men” are the cause of what happened to this athlete, it’s not surprising that men will be offended. To thereafter frame the obvious response as sexist is projection, frankly.

The part where you said you own a little piece of earth down to the core, and up to space is incorrect.

The part where you said Brazil does not “have title” to the sky implies a very limited understanding on your part.

Technically, I own a little piece of earth from the center of the core to space. I can’t control the skies above me, but I technically own them.

This is just plain incorrect in any jurisdiction of which I’m aware.

If you own a house in suburbia, then you have a “title” which “entitles” you to certain rights within the boundaries described on set title. These rights will vary by jurisdiction but they’re things like the right to erect fences, erect structures, control access, contain livestock, and quietly enjoy that area.

The concept of “owning” land merely means owning that title and the rights it confers.

Your title will not grant you any rights as regards, for example, air traffic passing over the property in question.

A classic example of this dynamic is mining rights. The specifics will vary a lot by jurisdiction, but generally a title holder does not have any rights as regards the minerals located below their property. In many cases this might be moot, given that the only way to mine those minerals may be to buy the property and construct a mine. However it does present some interesting intricacies of the law. For example in Australia you may be authorised to access private property for the purposes of a mineral survey (using a metal detector …) but it’s a fairly fraught practice being “technically allowed” might be small comfort when faced with a shotgun.

I think that’s a bit reductive.

It’s fair enough to expect a large company to have a rep to attend court if they want to do business in your country.

If they refuse then it becomes a “rule of law” situation - even if it’s a dumb law, you can’t have a multinational disregard the court’s instructions.

Similar here. I’m an accountant by trade but tech is my strongest hobby.

Tomorrow: a new mothership!

LOL it’s so obvious. He just says whatever pops into his head. I’m sure he was talking to someone about his engagement numbers earlier that day, and paying to prop up the numbers was discussed.