No. I am saying google has the right to do what they wish with their property.

I specifically said they're a private company and thus no one cam claim First Amendment protections (because they're not the government).

Is it not Musks' property? Thus he gets to do with it as he wishes?

Or are you bringing it because you think someone else doing something wrong justifies another entity also doing wrong?

My position is that a private company has every right to filter as they wish on their platform, within the limit of the law, of which this issue does not qualify as a first amendment issue because Google is not the government.

However, they're all duplicitous assholes. And anyone who supports filtering like this, regardless of which side of the political spectrum gains ascendancy, is either ignorant, an idiot or disingenuous.

It's not that Republicans have a right to spam the shit out of people. Obviously there are not first amendment protections for a private comapny to handle spam the way it wants to.

The issue is that gmail ONLY filters republican political spam. And while I don't think there is much legal standing for the FTC, this is quite frankly, hypocritical bullshit.

Anyone who can't see the blatant hypocrisy is either ignorant, an idiot or is duplicitous.

"Dungeon Crawler Carl"

Now get out there and Read Read Read.

He just kept talking in one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic so that no one had a chance to interrupt it was really quite hypnotic

It's more than a "possibility".

I remember an interview by a reporter who was arrested because the FBI wanted his sources. The fed offered him their phone back so they could call their attorney. When they unlocked it to call their attorney, the fed yanked it from their hand disabled sleep mode and then gave it to forensics to download all the data.

Because they're greedy fucks and want money. Hence they keep insisting on 4chan paying the fine despite them not being within their jurisdiction.

I thought that when it comes to criminal intent with regards to mens rea (guilty mind), the act of hiding something is indicative of criminal intent.

If the law says they must allow for something, but they actively obfuscate or hinder the publics ability to do what they are legally obligated to do, that is a crime.

When I graduated with a degree in EE in 2014, I saw a job posting for Western Digital. It was an entry-level intern postion requring a PHD in related field, or Masters + 8 years experience.

For an intern position.

A question:

How is the situation for entry level coding positions and companies outsourcing these positions to other countries with lower labor costs?

Yes this. Exactly this.

This is so lazy. Interviewing a made-up sock puppet to push your agenda.

No there isn't. There is a "growing push" to discredit junk science. You mistake it for real science however because that narrative aligns with your agenda.

And it's way more prevalent than you believe. It's worked it's way into the senior academia at prestigious universities such as Harvard and Duke University.

Just googling the phrase "university professor fake data" gets you a list of scandals from different universities as well as other scientific institutions that got caught faking data for an agenda.

There is very little oversight in the academic fields and the only oversight is from other academics double-checking their peers. And the back scratching and quid-pro-quo has given rise to peer review mills that claim to, but do not publish fake peer reviewed papers.

Which is a whole 'nother issue.

I don't know the details, but I do it's easy to win cases when the defendant is dead and there are no opposition witnesses...

\documentclass{slashdot}
\begin{document}

\LaTex is the one true format. All others are trash.

\end{document}

In space... no one can hear you cough