This is a good policy but it should only be available to people who make 34.5% of the median national wage or else people might abuse it

Removed by mod

You know Trump wanted to kill him, right?

I enjoy writing and reading critiques of American power (including yours!) on fora like this one, and I think these spaces are valuable for education, radicalization, and organization. I consider this an example of freedom of speech. I also think we risk losing these freedoms under Trump. Do you disagree?

Isn’t he on a beach right now

I hope we continue to live in a world where you can criticize the powerful

There are reports that Trump, while president, wanted to shoot protestors. Reports say that Trump toned down his requests “after Attorney General William Barr and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley pushed back on his initial request.” There are similar reports about McMaster and other chumps who reined in the absolute worst dogshit instincts of Trump.

I don’t think these guys disagreed with Trump because they’re good people with good values. I think they did it because they’re authoritarians who got high on the pop Americana of Top Gun and Air Force One and believe America Is Freedom, and “You don’t shoot people who are protesting*” is one of those freedoms. Or, at the very least, it’s supposed to distinguish us from the international foes that these guys have always whined about.

(*Depending on who is protesting and what they even count as a protest. But I have been to dozens of protest marches, I was just at a Gaza march with thousands of people in New York, and I’ve never once worried about being shot for holding a sign and chanting.)

It’s worth noting that a lot of these guys, like Milley, predated Trump’s time in office. I think part of the reason Trump kept these guys around is because he straight-up sucks at hiring. This report highlights the difficulties of passing his loyalty test, but I recall another one (I can’t find it now) that said that during the transition, the Trump team was shocked to learn that they had to hire hundreds of people. They thought everyone came with the office. Trump was so inexperienced at it that he ended up asking Obama for advice.

None of that is the case the second time around. The folks who stay on do it knowing what Trump wants, and knowing that he’ll be empowered to get it. And unlike 2016, there’s a plan. Project 2025 has been vetting people for civil service roles, and Schedule F means that Trump could effectively sideline or fire any civil servants who want to slow-walk his agenda. The Supreme Court has already given him the greenlight with the Trump v. U.S. ruling. And, just earlier today, Trump again spoke of deploying the military against his political foes. No one who is joining this administration is doing it because they have some Jerry Bruckheimer view of America’s freedom. They all know the score this time around.

There’s one more reason that Trump’s hands were partially tied during his admin. Pema Levy at Mother Jones wrote about it in the context of January 6, but I think it applies to his administration generally:

Trump’s coup failed not because he and his allies lacked power, but because President Joe Biden’s margin of victory was big enough that some allies—including his own attorney general and most Senate Republicans—refused to use that power to illegally keep Trump in office.

Trump has never won a popular vote. If that were to change-- if he were to win the election by a majority, rather than just by picking up electoral votes in our shitty system-- then I can’t think of a single thing that would stop Trump from getting everything he wants. The small measures of freedom that some people in this country have eked out (the right to form a union, or protest, or publish criticism of the government), the launching pad from which most of our other freedoms and liberties have advanced or been protected, would be totally wiped out, and there would be no one to stop it.

Tbh I think the zine is more likely to get you in trouble. Many states ban any kind of campaigning within a certain distance of a polling place. But I don’t think handing out “I Voted” stickers would qualify as campaigning. A zine, on the other hand …

Gadgetbridge is such a fantastic privacy-preserving option for health trackers and it supports so many devices. Definitely check this list to find a compatible device

https://gadgetbridge.org/gadgets/wearables/

wow I haven’t learned anything from these replies, y’all are about as helpful as the French socialist party I guess

So can I get rid of container tabs now

Of all the things to Google, locksmith might be one of the most scam-prone

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/business/fake-online-locksmiths-may-be-out-to-pick-your-pocket-too.html

deleted by creator

Thank you for this clear, helpful answer

But… Why? Why would they get different restrictions on the basis of operating system?

Agreed. There’s a slight relief here, though: I believe this is the Times Square shuttle train, which only runs back and forth over a few stations and never goes outside. So at least you’re not on this train for long and never missing a view

Folks are asking “Why post this here?” I get the question but I think I also get the OP, as a New Yorker who was surprised to see this ad IRL.

Most of our subway ads are for VC-funded Internet darlings (think: mattresses-by-mail, kitschy underwear, online therapy) or for some aspiring blockbuster movie from an Internet giant.

Until I saw this ad, I had never in my life seen a subway ad for a company I actually used, let alone respected.

Seeing this ad in the wild broke my brain. I have advocated for online privacy for over a decade. I have spent so much energy pushing people to use Signal. But I had never before imagined that “online privacy” was a concept that could find an audience in mass marketing.

I don’t know if Mullvad will take off. But I know that seeing these ads moved me. I felt like maybe, MAYBE, our movement is breaking through.