!birdsarentreal@lemmy.world

I always thought the term “Wumao” sounded suspiciosly like “woo Mao.”

Even this Chinese company, why do they care to clone it all? It’s already all hosted and publicly available.

Until it isn’t. Perhaps they are preparing for a future war with the US and assume their access to all that code will be blocked. They want to copy it now while they have access.

You can’t block open source projects from anyone.

I think they were referring to blocking GitHub from public access. In the event of a world war I could easily see Microsoft obeying the order to shut down GitHub.

It’s not about laws at this level but about whether it is worth to do vs possible repercussions

Again, what repercussions? Who will enforce an ICC judgement against the CCP? Laws aside, what possible actions could be taken? I guess sanctions but that’s unlikely over something like this.

they came to Jesus

Described every corporation ever incorporated.

There’s no such thing as a middle or a center, there’s only left or right relative to some other point.

You might be thinking of the Overton Window.

• The Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse.

Do you just not have a full grasp of biology or are you too busy getting in your head about some shit you made up?

Yes. Both are true about antivaxxers.

One (that we know of) is trans and she hates him.

“Elon Musk’s transgender daughter has applied to legally change her name and gender, saying she no longer wants to “be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form”.”

He doesn’t have the best genes when it comes to hair loss. Have you ever seen what he looked like when he was younger; before he got the hair transplant?

It reaches through your monitor and slaps you.

I’m not the one who told corrected you earlier, but ket me reiterate…

You are incorrect in your assumption that our “country,” government, etc. censors our speech. Some people choose to self-censor and the government has nothing to do with that.

Also, you seem confused about what free speech (see: first amendment) actually means. This XKCD might help explain it to you.

You mean you actually read the article? Blasphemy!

33%, but yeah. Both are true.

66% of eligible are voting, 33% of eligible are not voting. Of the 66% that did vote, half of those (I used 49%) voted for Trump. Half of the 66% is 33%.

So, of the eligible voters, 33% voted Biden, 33% voted Trump, and 33% didn’t vote.

Or, if you want math:

.66 * .49 = .32 or 32%

Edit: I misunderstood the question and gave an off-topic answer. Someone else commented the correct reason: not all Americans are eligible to vote. Children, felons in certain States, etc. Since they didn’t/can’t vote they’re not counted in the “half of America” statistic often quoted.

Half of eligible voters voted for trump, which is about 32% of America in 2020.

No, pedi as in pediatrics. They’re talking about knocking it off of child poop.

49% of the americans

More accurately, 49% of voters. Out of all of the eligible voters in the 2020 election only 66% actually voted. And, that election had the highest turnout in over a century.

So when trying to calculate how many eligible voters voted for Trump in 2020 you’ll have to take the statistics above into consideration.

49% of 66% is 32% if my math is correct. 32% of eligible voters voted for Trump.

Sorry for being pedantic but it annoys me when people say that half of America supports Trump when it’s just not true.

Habbo Hotel

Me: “I know you said you think they should be free…”

You: “…you ignored the “i think they should be free”…”

Wait, what? You’ve already started out with false statements, but let’s continue:

You: “Seriously you think “black people can’t get IDs”…”

When did I ever say that? What I was referring to was poor people that might have to decide between eating or paying for an ID. I never said that the poor people were black. That racist stuff was conjured up in your head. I’m actually offended by your assumption.

You …"instead of “we should help them get them” your first thought is to feel sorry for them and do nothing other than say “well we shouldn’t have them for voting?”

Again you’re misunderstanding (or intentionally trolling) what I was actually saying. I was saying that your opinion that it’s okay to charge people money to be able to vote was the antithesis of democracy. Everyone should be able to vote regardless of their socioeconomic status.

You: Frankly, if we did provide everyone with an ID like we should, what then would be your argument against it?

Again, I think your reading comprehension is amiss because we’ve been in agreement that ID should be free to all.

You: Would it still be racist?

I would like to once again remind everyone that I never mentioned race once. I was referring to poor people that can’t afford an ID. Someone else made it racial.

So you’re saying that you believe some people should have to resort to begging for money in order to vote? I mean, I know you said you think they should be free but the rest of the paragraph makes it seem like you feel people having to pay to vote is okay.