Which is a fine stance in the large, but not applicable to the current story. Assisting someone in leaking classified information being illegal is not some moral injustice.

I’m really not sure what your argument is. Sometimes journalists and whistleblowers have to break the law? Sure. However, they are still breaking the law. Certainly, an adult who is breaking the law should know that they are subject to consequences and need to suck it up and live with those consequences. Rosa Parks had her day in court and was convicted of a crime. She accepted that she broke the law, regardless of how unjust it was, and did the time. That was enough to affect change.

If Assange, or anyone else, insists on breaking the law to be able to publish information, then they need to accept that they will be held accountable. Chelsea Manning served her time. Assange finally had his day in court. Snowden, hopefully, will get his day in court as well.

I feel bad for the folks that need and deserve that money from the settlement, but it was unconscionable to allow the Sackler fucks to walk away immune with their billions. Fuck that family. I hope they get sued all the way to the poor house and found criminally liable.

That’s a straw man. We’re talking about journalists enticing someone to break the law. I already provided Greenwald and Poitras as examples of journalists who had a far larger impact with their coverage and did so without breaking the law.

No shit, those are called laws. Journalists do not get a free pass to break laws. Imagine that was the case for a second. How quickly would the Sun or any other shit rag convince someone to murder someone so they can report on it?

This is an absurd stance. The dude broke the law, he has now had his day in court.

That’s journalism.

Uh, no it fucking isn’t. Journalists absolutely are not permitted to entice people to commit crimes more than any other person. This is exactly why Greenwald and Poitras were not indicted, they didn’t ask Snowden to do anything, they just reported what he had already stolen.

And then you can go through and delete all your comments, lessening the value of Reddit as a platform.

I have USAA, and if you use that app you’re eligible for discounts on your insurance.

Huh? What do you think they promised that wasn’t delivered that would’ve made this anything that a phone app couldn’t do better? Fundamentally, talking to things sucks, but phones support that anyway. The gimmicky interface is worse than just a touch screen. You have to wear the fucking thing which makes it useless if I’m in bed or whatever. The AI was shit but could just as easily be integrated into an app. It was a shit product from design to execution.

Whaaaaat? Y posted something misleading? Do you think this person might be biased?

That’s a pretty significant “if”. This was a gun show in Phoenix 5+ years ago. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s unlikely they were openly violating the law at such a large event.

I’ve only ever purchased a single gun at a gun show, but they had a big ass table full of guns (and other junk) and I was not subject to a background check. This is definitely going to force more background checks, which is a good thing.

Yes, it’s literally a straw man. OP constructed an argument (Microsoft is a monopoly) that was not present in any comments nor the article, and then attacked that.

This is a straw man. Nobody is saying they’re a monopoly. They’re saying Microsoft has a history of anti competitive behavior.

Could be that both texts are provided to the phone, which would then pick the appropriate version. Seems more reasonable than trying to keep track or query millions of phones of different make and manufacturer for a language setting.

They probably aren’t insured at all. These aren’t billion dollar satellites, so they’re probably just launched at risk.

Which is irrelevant. I paid for the ticket. Whatever costs have been covered. If I choose not to use it, that’s my prerogative.