I remember fondly the talks I had with strangers about their hobbies and learning about technology while I was employed there. I remember seeing this specific stores sales numbers and thinking to myself that their daily sales were close to our monthly. Our store closed shortly after.

So.. the very post you share prooves it's not happening. Incredulously, I gotta wounder: Did/ do you really believe your link supports your claim that it's been happening?

What did I claim? Read what i wrote. The video says EXACTLY what I stated.

So, I think, the courts ruled just 2 days ago that people can get sent abroad so long as they get to 'petition' it in... Texas. Right? So like, if their was an investigation, it closed one day prior to the interview; which is why she didnt say what you think she did. Trump said Would do it, and supposedly now he Can do it. All this is 'fact'in her eyes prior to the interview. An important distinction, no?

So you think it’s sane to do nothing and wait till it’s happening when they are explicitly saying they are looking for ways to make it happen? Really?

At this when they say something absurdly unhinged and unthinkable and if you still don’t believe they will try it.. well.. maybe you’re in the market for a bridge?

Immigration judges are "administrative judges" and work for the executive (i.e. Trump), not an independent branch.

It'll be appealed to a Federal court now.

Mhmm! Thanks for adding context.

I've met (maybe) 3 other developers, in my life, who have used all the listed technologies. Most will either use ssh or use react; seldom ever work w both.

My friend whos loves word games said she liked it. Asked for the link so I sent it along. Critique was that proper nouns should be removed as it caused a great deal of uncertainy about weather the remaining words would be known.

For real. The US trades our services for other countries goods. What happens to our trade when our services become ubiquitous through AI.

Because juries (in some countries, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror's_oath ; however, includes France) take an oath to examine the evidence presented and judge impartially to the best of their ability. Voters don’t.

At the presidential level I would say the law should follow the (will of the) people and not the other way around. After all, those irrational voters are the ones who created the law in the first place, in so many ways. As an aside, the more I think about someone being able to truly be impartial, the more I giggle. Myself included, of course.

Bundless.dev - A non-intrusive 35kb client side react compiler

Easyjobapps.com - autofill job forms with tailored resumes and replies.

Indefinitely jailing people to get a confession sounds like a midevil torture tactic. Is that a good balance of the Average Joe's right to privacy and privacy restrictions for fighting crime you speak of?

> Indefinitely jailing people to get a confession sounds like a midevil torture tactic.

That's very clearly not what I wrote. You can demand information this way, not a confession... People in the UK generally have a legal obligation to answer any questions the court has, unless they are themselves the accused. There are a small few other exceptions.

To get back to the point.

Just because UK law allows compelled disclosure doesn’t make it right—it makes it a bad law. It creates a self-incrimination loophole, shifting the burden of proof onto individuals instead of the state. Leading to erosion of due process and a presumption of guilt, forcing people to either comply or face punishment, even when no crime has been proven. Civil rights advocates have lambasted this law.

So I ask: Do you believe it to be balanced?

Using flawed laws to justify more erosion of privacy only deepens the problem.