Texas killing this child for losing a pregnancy

Texas didn't kill her for loosing a pregnancy - Texas killed her by making her losing the pregnancy take too long by terrifying doctors out of speeding the process along, causing her to be in and out of hospital ERs repeatedly while doctors essentially played "hot potato" with her despite all of them knowing what needed done out of fear of being thrown in prison for a century if they did it, causing her to eventually develop sepsis and die.

It's much, much worse than "killing her for losing a pregnancy", and exactly how awful it is and how it got to that point needs to be spelled out in detail. Otherwise you'll have people pointing out that the Texas law has an exception for medical emergencies, and it needs pointed out and doubled down on that by the time the doctors were reasonably certain that a conservative Texas court would agree with them it was a medical emergency (aka she'd already developed a systemic infection), she was already doomed.

Are they? It literally points out "Who you voted for is secret" on the ad, right above where it says that people will know if you voted.

...and yet they've had power before - several times, including once with it being literally this dipshit - and haven't burned it all down to gain power yet.

But then this election is different, it's the most important election of our lifetimes, just like the Democrats have said about every other election since at least 2004. Down to the literal phrase "the most important election of our lifetimes."

The reality is both major parties benefit from the system, and both market based on fear because they don't have anything positive to offer voters that isn't an outright lie that the voters know is an outright lie. The big difference is the the GOP markets on fear of the other and the Dems market on fear of the GOP.

Anyways, why the fuck was he driving people out of the plains? Homies were just chilling in their iron chariots.

For the same reason as now - because Israel wanted their land.

Tusday was maybe the best a thousand years ago but who cares?

Closer to two hundred years ago, since the law in question was passed in 1854. But the point was it's that way for a reason, and that reason was a good reason at the time it was done. It seems so weird now because of social change that has since made it inconvenient.

It can also be changed if Congress wanted to, as it's just a regular law and not part of the Constitution or something else that would be harder to change.

On my instance you just click "Communities" at the top and it gives you a list of communities with three options at the top Subscribed/Local/All just like the main feed. Click all and you can browse or search the list of all communities, though the search is not great.

It's on Tuesday because that was actually convenient with the flow of business at the time. Most were Christian and wouldn't work or travel on Sunday if possible, it often took a day's travel to get to the nearest town with a polling place, and Wednesday was market day.

If Sunday and Wednesday are right out and you need a day's travel time (which also can't be Sunday or Wednesday) you're basically left with Tuesday or Friday. And if you're going to be in town for the market anyways then Tuesday makes more sense.

It is in November because that's after the biggest harvests, but not so far after that the weather is likely to be rough. And it's the Tuesday after the first Monday so that it can't overlap with All Saints Day.

On the upside it could be changed with a regular old law, it doesn't require an amendment or anything.

And sometimes that goes the exact opposite way. For example, Lorena Bobbitt was acquitted on an insanity defense and spent less than two months in counseling.

John Oliver did an episode on "stand your ground" ages ago

Doesn't require stand your ground, unless you could reasonably flee the attacker. If they've got a gun it's not too hard to argue that you couldn't reasonably flee or they'd shoot you in the back.

Stand your ground just removes the duty to try to get away from an attacker if possible, and is only the law in some states.

Puerto Rico periodically votes on whether or not to pursue becoming a state, becoming a state doesn't win except in one vote that was specifically a non-binding vote on the topic and that had much lower turnout than other votes on the idea.

DC was literally created specifically to not be a state, so that no state held the seat of the federal government.

Do you or have you ever worked in science? I did for a bit and that was not my impression.

I imagine it depends heavily on the field. In some fields there are ideas that one can't seriously study because they're considered settled or can't be studied without doing more harm than any believed good that could be achieved. There are others subject to essentially ideological capture where the barrier to publish is largely determined by how ideologically aligned you are (fields linked to an identity group have a bad habit of being about activism first and accurate observation of reality second).

Because a carrier's data on you is not your person or belongings. The companies holding this data are selling access to it, so it's not being searched, it's being offered.

In other words, the same reason as why they don't need a search warrant if there's a breaking and the business across the street volunteers their security camera footage, even if you're on that footage.

instead of blocking advertising data, we should embrace it IMO.

imagine a world where users shove so much information at these tools that they can't even tell what's real or not. camouflage works better when everyone participates.

There's an ad blocker that does exactly this. Called Ad Nauseam. Chrome blocked it from their store super fast, then blocked it from being installed in Chrome from 3rd party sites, then blocked known versions of it from being manually installed in developer mode. I used to run it set to a low percentage - if I "clicked" every ad they'd know to throw my data out, but if I click say 3% of them...

No, you can't get fined for saying the N-word in the US. But, repeatedly shouting it while committing an assault pretty conclusively demonstrates it was a racially motivated assault, and lots of jurisdictions in the US have laws that aggravate a crime or add an additional charge if the crime was motivated by hatred of a protected class.

Those laws can (but almost never are) applied even if the member of the protected class is male, white, etc. I think the last time I heard of someone being given hate crime charges for doing something to a white victim was the 2017 Chicago torture case where the crime was streamed on Facebook. Two black men and two black women were involved, the men received bail of $800k and $900k, the women bail of $500k and $200k - in the end all did plea deals with the men getting 7 and 8 years in prison and the women 4 years of probation and 3 years of prison. Which demonstrates neatly how much sex plays into punishment in the US, since they were all part of the same case doing the same crimes.

It's both. The criminal justice system treats white folks better than black folks, and women better than men. Depending on what exactly you're measuring which one is the larger gap can go either way. For sentencing, sex means more than race - so she'd get a longer sentence if she were a black woman, but an even longer one if she were a white man, and a still longer one if she were a black man.

I'm actually surprised a white girl got a whole year for an assault. And not even a suspended sentence!

I've seen cases where it's like "white woman stabs boyfriend in heart, boyfriend narrowly survives due to prompt medical attention, 30 day suspended sentence" or "woman sexually assaults minor boy, gets herself pregnant from the assault, no punishment for her and boy owes woman child support for being her victim."

In the modern day or historically? And would the perpetrator in this case be a man or a woman?

Because I can point you to an interview from about a decade ago where a prominent researcher of sexual assault (as in she coined the term "date rape" and is the origin of the 1 in 4 number you see sometimes) reacts in utter disbelief to the idea that a woman could rape a man, and when given an example where the man is drugged into compliance declares that situation to not be rape but just "unwanted contact".

In the UK, a woman cannot commit rape by law unless she is trans (rape requires the perpetrator to penetrate the victim with the perpetrator's penis, cis women simply lack the equipment).

In the US the definitions aren't that bad, but they're close. The FBI redefined rape a few years back in a way that allowed for the possibility of a woman committing it, but is also phrased in a way that implies only the penetrating party can rape.

To be fair, we achieved flight by copying nature. Once we realized the important part was the shape of a wing more than the flapping.

Whereas I miss the old Aldi "single use" plastic bags because I'd use them a few dozen times (not necessarily at Aldi) before they either got holes or a strap broke or something. I've still some stashed in places for when I need a decent plastic bag to hold something.

This wasn't about coke zero but about two batch numbers of the zero sugar version of minute maid lemon aid, in cans.

I mean, you could accomplish it, but there's going to have to be a line because to get enough BJs in there's no space for travel time. That's a lot of voters, and she's going to have to be fast to blow enough to tip an election.