More like, neighbour invites everybody to their pool, but if you go, you have to sign a legal agreement that you invite everybody to your whole house.

Incorrect. No one gets access to the rest of your company’s source code. It’s just that, since they gave you a ton of wonderful stuff for free, you have to do likewise if you’re going to build on their stuff. If you don’t want that, then go find some other swimming pool so to speak (which it sounds like you’ve done).

It boggles my mind how people think this is unintended. “My company tried to build on GPL3 software, but IDK if the authors realized this, but we’re not allowed to do that unless we share our contributions back in turn! What an error! As soon as they find out, they’ll surely change the licensing to one that is more amenable to what we want to do in terms of reselling their source code to people without complying on our end with the GPL!”

I can pretty much guarantee you, this will not be a surprise to the people who licensed their code GPL. We have been having this conversation for decades. Your input as to whether it’s “beneficial” to them to restrict you from doing what they don’t want you to do is noted.

“How dare my neighbor put a fence around his pool! I tell you, ever since he did that, my kids can’t swim there and we’ve had to figure out something else to do.”

She was pretty emotional at times. She only really smiled the once. You can see that it fucked her up a little bit, she’s just got enough fire not to let it bother her on camera and mostly get on with what she feels like needs to be said. That is my read of it at least, from my uninformed perspective.

Imagine that! The consent of the governed.

Yeah. I feel like part of it is just historical / accidental, but also, resisting fascism (in modern terminology) was more or less the absolutely key overriding priority that the US government had built into it at the start.

Even things like having each state run its own mini-election and be in charge of it, instead of a single federal election, start to seem pretty prescient in the current climate.

Almost every time like the one we are currently living in involves police/military people having to decide where their loyalties lie. Sometimes it’s with the people, sometimes it’s with the regime. Very often it is different between different agencies (with the lowest-level ones tending to side with the people).

The US is such a patchwork (both organizationally and on in individual level for each cop) that I think there will be a big and chaotic variety. It could range from sheriff’s departments headed by Trump-loyal sheriffs who are willing to go to war with city agencies who are trying to protect their people, all the way over to city cops who eventually start actively defending their cities against the feds who are trying to do obviously illegal things there. That last one hasn’t happened yet but I think it may be right around the corner. Things are changing. Those city workers telling Kristi Noem to get fucked from being allowed to pee in Broadview City Hall, that stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

No, I am talking about the standardized HGN test. I specifically said I wasn’t sure that there were not also cops out there doing something different like you described. The one I was talking about is the present-day standardized field sobriety test with the eyes, though (HGN test).

I don’t think most of that is true. Mostly the field sobriety eye test is checking whether your eyes will twitch when they go to the edge of the field of view. They have to shine enough light near your face to be able to see your eyes obviously but if they’re shining it right in your eyes they are definitely doing it wrong.

(Fun fact, when I was younger I passed one of those when I should not have. The cop was holding a pen near the edge of my field of view and I could literally see the pen shaking because of my eyes twitching, and for some reason he passed me on the test. I was not especially drunk, so maybe I was below the threshold, but I had been drinking. Who knows. Anyway, don’t drive drunk kids. I just saw a bodycam video yesterday of a woman who had gotten in the car just to move it, while she was pretty drunk, and she managed to run over her husband who was near the car and kill him. She was shattered, looked like just a sweet woman who was out having fun and now her life was irrevocably destroyed, I did not finish watching the video.)

I won’t say that there are not cops out there that will shine light in your eyes to check your pupil size or something (and definitely small pupils are a sign of drug use… I think mostly it is stimulants shrinking your pupils as almost all of what they’re looking for; psychedelics will make your pupils big but that’s not what most people they’re looking to bust for DUI drugs have taken I think). The standard test is looking for twitching though.

Matrix is an absolutely pale imitation of Discord.

Yes it is very upsetting that the most popular chat platform in the Western world is in league with Sauron, but Matrix as a replacement is a glorified ICQ client that regularly yells at you that your device is untrusted now and there’s no hope of fixing it, you loser.

This is an excellent video which talks about some of Epstein’s background and different theories about his wealth. Boyle thinks the blackmail theory is unlikely (which makes sense to me), although of course it is impossible to know.

Why people are taking Howard Lutnick as an important source on this topic who needs to be listened to is baffling to me. I think this is a disinfo operation from the right, trying in some way to reduce the impact on Trump. Why people are posting it on Lemmy and buying into it, I don’t know, but I think they shouldn’t.

1. Why are we posting NYPost interviews
2. Why are we posting interviews with Trump’s commerce secretary, who is carefully aiming the Epstein-blame at Bill Gates and carefully not at Donald Trump
3. The blackmail theory is actually one of the less likely theories about the source of his wealth, although of course it’s impossible to really know. This guy stating confidently that it is the explanation means absolutely 0 to me.

This seems like literal disinformation.

Yeah. Somewhere on YouTube there are plenty of lawyer videos about how to deal with those stops, but basically TL;DR: Refuse the field sobriety tests, be calm and polite, don’t answer questions or engage in discussion (aside from providing your name and IDing yourself), cooperate with any kind of medical / chemical test they want you to do.

• 47% blame Republicans
• 30% blame Democrats
• 23% aren’t sure
• 0% say this whole thing is a catastrophic sanewashing in the middle of a literal coup with federal secret police on the streets snatching people, plans to cancel elections, attempts to deploy the military against the citizens, all kinds of horrifying stuff which makes the sudden panic about a “shutdown” treated as a unique and exciting event, while understandable, a bit weird. Maybe they put that option way down the page and people just missed seeing it before picking one of the earlier options.

Throwback to the time that some schoolteachers from an American school went through an average day in the exact same environment in the student role (I don’t even remember what the original purpose was but it was for some kind of random reason.) They all reported experiencing severe anxiety and hatred by the end of that single day. Having a bell order you around from place to place, having to sit perfectly still for extended lengths of time just listening to someone speaking at you and never saying a word, not being able to drink or go to the bathroom except in these sparse designated time periods, it’s fuckin’ weird and incredibly unpleasant and stressful. They all had no idea.

And I’ve observed many times people reacting to all that that you just laid out, by getting super-hostile with the cops and committing additional crimes in the course of that hostility. Never once did it overthrow the system of fascism or make their life any easier. If you want to talk about how to change all that system and make the justice back again part of the equation, then sure, I think that’s super worthwhile and we should talk about it (very genuinely.)

If they want to arrest you they will. And cooperating on things like sobriety tests outside of a breathalyzer which you cannot refuse without consequence, we’ll just give them probable cause as they will lie.

100%. Never ever cooperate with the sobriety test. Just say something like, “I feel like those tests are pretty subjective, so no, I don’t want to do that. You can breath test me, blood test me, whatever [because yes those do have consequences if you refuse], because I’m sober [because you ARE sober, as opposed to careening around on the road trying to get my nieces killed RIGHT?]. But no, I’m refusing the field sobriety test, if you want my answer on that.”

You’ll probably get arrested. It will be a pain in the ass. But, that might have happened anyway, so you might as well start setting things up to advantage yourself in your case. Honestly you can make your own judgement whether maybe it’s worth doing a quick HGN test because the cop is for real not sure whether you are sober or not… in general, though, if they’re talking to you about DUI, you should ask for a PBT and refuse any physical sobriety test (recognizing that it will make it way more likely that you get arrested). Your lawyer will thank you and you’ll basically be fine.

I don’t know why people focus so hard on the “getting arrested” part of the equation and not on the “beating the case” part of it, when the second part is far more important. Cops know that, and part of the manipulation that they’ll do is kind of making it sound like cooperating with them is going to make getting arrested less likely. The case is the big deal part of it though.

100% true, although a good lawyer will be able to prevent any “legal” penalties ultimately, they can sure fuck up your day in the meantime. This is one reason I was recommending against certain ways of antagonizing them for no reason.

Why are you assuming anyone is advocating for 3?

I need you to do a quick Ctrl-F for “Now I don’t really know”.

This isn’t just a normal cop on a power trip, these “task force” agents were just given the federal government’s blessing to go wild.

I need you to do a quick Ctrl-F for “probably a tactical mistake”. Yes, I get that especially these particular cops are not necessarily going to behave like ordinary city cops. That makes it a worse idea to commit extra crimes and antagonize them, it doesn’t mean it all of a sudden becomes a good idea or an effective way to push back against fascism.

if they tell you to get out, you probably should

* you 100% should, in literally every single situation I can think of unless your name is Tyre Nichols

getting out of your vehicle when instructed does not in any way then allow them to search your car outside of the above reasons

Correct… but advising people to “stand up for their rights” if they start searching it anyway (with or without a legal basis that the person doesn’t understand on the spot), I think is a lot more likely to get them arrested for obstruction than it is to change the cops’ mind about doing the search. And then once they’re arrested for a pretty solid reason, they can do a tow inventory without worrying about the search getting tossed out later, so they’re on ironclad footing as far as whatever they find. You’re technically right but I think explaining a little more detail about what you are talking about would probably be a better way to talk about it, in terms of what will happen to anyone who listens to you, even if the idea is right.

Just being pulled over for a moving violation doesn’t mean they can then go fishing for something more serious.

It absolutely does. They can call for a dog, they can see something that’s in plain sight, they can allegedly smell burnt marijuana and there’s nothing on the bodycam to show that they didn’t. They can ask you incriminating questions in a friendly fashion, which if you are smart you won’t give much of any response to. They can decide you have glossy eyes and they want you to get out and do a field sobriety test, and then they can pat you down to make sure you don’t have any weapons for officer safety. There are certain limits on how they can go fishing for something more serious, but they absolutely can make the attempt, and if they find something without crossing certain boundaries, then it’s fair game and you can be fucked. And there are some boundaries on how you’re allowed to resist their fishing that a lot of people don’t have a clear understanding of the details of.

On the whole most of what you are saying is right. You are substantially ahead of the curve as far as Lemmy law knowledge. The little caveats above are just little nitpicks honestly. But my point is, people are idiots and frequently get themselves arrested because they took advice like “stand up for your rights” seriously and went to bat about it, without really understanding what their rights are and how to stand up for them. I think more detail and understanding is important to provide. That’s all I’m saying.

refusing to answer questions

In your mind, does that include your name and birthday?

or provide documents you’re not legally required to

In your mind, does that include providing your ID (let’s just say on a traffic stop)?

Or refusing a search of your vehicle without probable cause.

Do you mean refusing verbally while not preventing them, or do you mean physically refusing to cooperate with it (not getting out of the car so they can search for example)?

Just want to check up how you did in law school. If you pass, then yes, I think it’s a good idea for you to stand up for your rights. If you don’t know the answers to these questions, then “standing up for your rights” can get you in a whole shitload of trouble you didn’t need to be in.