1
Otter Browser Forum / Re: RIP Otter?
See https://github.com/OtterBrowser/otter-browser/issues/1765 for discussion.
This section allows you to view all Messages made by this member. Note that you can only see Messages made in areas you currently have access to.
Is that a scam to get people's phone numbers or is it just a classic case of "everything Microsoft touches turns to $h17?"I suspect it's not so much Microsoft as bots, if they're pushing it. Although it's true that Microsoft et al seem to have some ideas about 2FA as well…
BTW I just realized I posted this in the Otter forums. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate location if you want.Seeing how Otter is on GitHub it seems quite appropriate to me.
Here you'd leave to go home or you'd ask to eat along, and your friend's parents would normally ask about your dinner arrangements before making dinner.And of course you'd have to call your parents to ask if it's okay that you're not eating with them unless you arranged it in advance. They have meals to plan too.
Times have changed, too – today, it’s a different story. In Sweden now, if you have one child who comes over, they would likely get food as well. It’s not so much the way it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago, when I was growing up. But even then, it really wasn’t the “big deal” people on Twitter are making it sound like it was. Everyone did it. You just continued playing with dolls (or whatever it was) while your friend ate with their mum and dad.This particular scenario of sticking around while the family is eating does sound odd to me as a non-Swede. Here you'd leave to go home or you'd ask to eat along, and your friend's parents would normally ask about your dinner arrangements before making dinner. For lunch it's different because lunch is bread-based; that doesn't require any planning. I think there's also a factor of summer vs winter, which is to say parents generally want you to come home before it's dark.
First, when you are a guest for at least half an hour, you invariably get tea/coffee/juice/water suggested everywhere outside the red area.I don't know where you'd come up with the idea that we don't offer anything to drink.
In dark blue areas, this invariably includes wholesome snacks like sandwiches.As stated, that depends on the time of day. If you expect sandwiches at 14:30 you could be disappointed, though there'll be a variety of snacks and pastries.
In red areas it is expected, e.g. when there is a party, everyone bring own drinks.Umm… what? [Edit: that's not to say that what's called a potluck in English doesn't exist but I think the default is that there's a host.]
And finally, nobody except the red area people are puzzled about what the "context" of this kind of map might be.I asked what the context was because it's either nonsense or it's talking about something specific.
Yes, ofc. It is seen as basic decency and hospitality. Ofcourse you're not going to be offered to stay for dinner up-front if you arrive ~1 pm., but when dinnertime approaches, it is normal that people offer their guests to stay for dinner. Or if you visit around lunchtime, and the host hasn't had lunch, it is common to ask the guests to join for lunch.
What would the alternative be? Just have your guests seated at the table, but without offering them food?
Oh, so Musk is only #2 businessman in the world now? What a shakeup!Number 3, Jeff Bezos also pulled ahead for the same reason.
And Elon is the best businessman we have, as measured by net worth. Don't pretend there is any other measure.Well no, it's Bernard Arnault due to that.
It's based on polling, asking what people think. Isn't livability objectively measurable, such as number of kindergartens/schools per parents etc?I partially disagree with that. At best you might leave things on the table, at worst you'd risk measuring in the wrong direction. Asking people could act as a sanity check for whether something like the number of kindergartens/schools per parents actually does what you think it does.
The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishesThis argument is shockingly weak. Obviously the president cannot appoint themselves; only dictators do that. They are appointed by the people (or perhaps we should say the electors, not that the distinction matters here). That the president appoints all other officers of the state makes them the highest officer of the state, not not an officer of the state. This clause is clarifying both the power and confines of their higher office.
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the PresidentA better argument than the above, though of course we can note they're explicitly held to the same standards by this text.
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.
•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that theThe same weak sauce as before.
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.
•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President isIt's more logical to conclude that the distinction simply isn't relevant here, the way it's relevant in the Appointments Clause and the Commissions Clause where the highest officer is granted those additional powers.
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.
The Court agrees with Petitioners that an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution encompasses the same duties as an oath to support the Constitution. The Court,
however, agrees with Intervenors that given there were two oaths in the Constitution at the time,
the fact that Section Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers
suggests that that is the class of officers to whom Section Three applies.
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial
officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each
House, remove such disability.
310.
Magliocca further argued that contemporary usage supports the view that
the President is an “officer of the United States.” Andrew Johnson repeatedly referred to
himself as such in presidential proclamations, members of Congress both during the
39th Congress that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and during Johnson’s
impeachment several years later repeatedly referred to the President the same way, and
earlier presidents in the Nineteenth Century were referred to the same way. 11/01/23 Tr.
56:3–59:16, 69:21–71:21.
311.
On the other hand, Intervenors argue that five constitutional provisions
show that the President is not an “officer of the United States.”
•The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes
between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the
Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President
and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United
States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 4.
•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the
President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S.
CONST. art. II, § 3.
•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is
explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to
take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.
•Article VI provides further support for distinguishing the President from
“Officers of the United States” because the oath taken by the President
under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is not the same as the oath prescribed
for officers of the United States under Article VI, Clause 3.
There are good terrorists, those who are useful for our geostrategic interests (call them moderate or freedom fighters) and bad terrorists, those who don't serve our geostrategic interests.Is a term like "freedom fighter" even used anymore since the Wall fell? I've seen words like "guerrillas" my entire life, "freedom fighter" being some kind of quaint Cold War relic that primarily refers to guerrillas opposing oppressive communist regimes. Perhaps it's simply that the militants tend to instill their own dictatorship after emerging victoriously, but let's not forget that some insurgents never use the language of freedom at all. Some rather explicitly want to install dictatorships and/or theocracies. As such the term "freedom fighter" seems more naive than meaningless per se. A pretty common way to distinguish between "regular" insurgents and terrorists is whether or not they make a point of attacking non-combatants. So,
a. Hamas targeting Israeli soldiers is probably not terrorism, depending a bit on the specifics including e.g. treatment of prisoners.
b. Hamas targeting Israeli citizens is definitely terrorism.
Ergo, Hamas is a terrorist organization, clear as day. It's only when b is absent that things might get a bit muddier. In my experience, b is always present when calling something a terrorist organization.
Hamas is a terrorist organization and their rocket attacks should be unconditionally condemned. But this was also calculated political recklessness and opportunism by Netanyahu. His political end is nigh and apparently, cynically, a battle for Jerusalem during Ramadan is just the thing. Close the gate, close the Al-Aksa mosque without provocation, kick people out of their homes, wait for the Hamas deplorables to take the bait. Mission accomplished, even if presumably slightly more so than expected.
Also keep in mind Hamas has more popular support among Palestinians now because of that wretched wall and because of the increasingly apartheid-based state.
What Hamas did last week should have sparked a robust debate about -oh, I don't know- the rules of war, the role of Antisemitism, and the resurgence of the barbarian.Why should it? Nothing has changed. Hamas is still a bunch of terrorists and Netanyahu is still an idiot — heck, this underlines it.