Bipartisan is a really bad sign. My money says this is not going to be aimed at actually addressing the underlying profit motive that drives big tech to purposefully promote misery through their algorithm designs, instead it will be further restriction on users freedoms and privacy.

I did this during an international trip last year coming back into the country. The guy mostly seemed confused and kind of suspicious, but it was nbd.

They will potentially take you out of line to a side room to hand you off to someone else. It seemed to be an area where they deal with any oddball kind of things. There was a lady ahead of me who was more raucus and upset about some issue with her ID. The guy who checked mine mainly seemed kind of bemused, like it was unusual.

Be prepared for “We have the biometric data from your photo already, why do you care?”

You’re not obligated to give them a super detailed justification. Just remain polite and unconfrontational, and explain that you prefer not use the system as long as the right remains afforded to you to opt out.

(Note, this right only extends to US citizens)

I can’t say about XP or 7 but they’ve definitely saved my bacon on Win10 before on my home system. And the company I work for has them automatically created and it made dealing with the problem much easier as there was a restore point right before the crowdstrike update. No messing around with the file system drivers needed.

I’d really recommend at least creating one at a state when your computer is working ok, it doesn’t hurt anything even if it doesn’t work for you for whatever reason. It’s just important to understand that it’s not a cure all, it’s only designed to help with certain issues (primarily botched updates and file system trouble).

This is why you create restore points if using windows.

I linked you directly to an article discussing the lawsuit.

https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.

I’m blocking you now. Good bye.

How can I ignore that which you did not provide?

I literally pointed you to the court case where the court said the DNC was rigging the convention against Sanders. I provided you that. That’s not my opinion, that’s literally what happened in court and Wasserman Schultz resigned over it. Your eyes literally won’t allow you to see it because it completely conflicts with the fantasy you want to believe is true (That the DNC isn’t deeply corrupt and diametrically opposed to progressive values).

You’ve got to be a troll. We’re done here.

So you ignore the facts you don’t like, and take the ones you do. And I’m projecting…

Why the fuck do you think Wasserman Schultz stepped down? What is your explanation if it’s not the scandal involving her bias as chair exposed in the emails? Coincidence? What possible benefit to you gain from this denial of established reality?

Ohh, a political “scientist” said it, must be a fact. I take back everything I posted, I will now pretend that Wasserman Schultz didn’t actively admit to trying to rig the convention against Sanders and that the court literally said in plain english that’s what was happening.

Must’ve just been a coincidence!

The way you people try to rewrite history is insane.

I understand that everyone has differing priorities

And what, specifically, are those for Clinton? Protecting corporate oligarchy? What exactly do you believe Clinton truly offers to the average voter that Sanders does not?

The question i originally addressed was whether the DNC screwed Sanders. There is no evidence that they did anything to him that would have overcome the shellacking he took.

Yes, there is. He was painted as an “extremist” by the establishment, his supporters were repeatedly portrayed as “Bernie Bros” despite being a majority women in order to give the impression that his following has some kind of latent misogynist leanings (which Warren played on again in 2020 by lying about him saying that a woman can’t be president). The party super delegates were allowed to pre-vote to give the impression Clinton had a greater lead than she really did. Primary debates between Sanders and Clinton were scheduled for times with the least viewership, he recieved very few interviews on major outlets and when he did it was almost always just some talking head aggressively criticizing his “extreme left wing” policies.

There was the email leak that demonstrated that there was hostility towards Sanders from within the DNC and that members were looking to help Clinton’s campaign.

Do we not remember that it was concluded in court that the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was working to sabotage Sanders. The court didnt deny the rigging was hapoening, it just decided it was ok to rig things against candidates because in its view the party can pick whatever candidates they want.

It’s not a question of whether or not the DNC and their corporate media allies working to undermine the Sanders campaign, it’s established, yes, they were. That’s how public opinion is manufactured; by leveraging the media and party apparatus to create a false narrative to decieve voters and manipulate people’s perception of who and what ideas are viable. Pretending there weren’t powerful interests aligned against Sanders plays into that narrative.

Yes and the American people voted for Trump over Clinton, that doesn’t mean he won due to his popularity, he won because he exploited a broken system, same as Clinton exploited a broken system within the DNC.

Clinton’s primary win is not evidence that she was overwhelmingly popular, it’s evidence that democratic voters was misled about Sanders (who we both supposedly agree is a better candidate). Clinton voters are low-information, a condition that’s fostered deliberately by the DNC and Democrat-aligned corporate media, because if they didn’t decieve people those voters would understand that Sanders is actually someone who would work to deliver the things that benefit all of us.

If you actually think Sanders is the better candidate then you should agree that most normal people aren’t aware of why. On the other hand, if you think Sanders lost fair and square and democratic voters voted with full knowledge then that’s basically just saying you think progressive policy is a failure on its own merits.

Warren backstabbed Sanders in 2016 and 2020 even after she lost, she fell in line with the establushment instead of fighting for what she claims to believe. She’s arguably worse than out and out conservative dems, she’s there to sabotage the left and siphon away votes.

Millions were swayed by lies spun by corporate media.

It’s possible to defeat a popular progressive like sabders when you have the backing of the party establishment and their corporate media apparatus.

Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate, that doesn’t make her a better candidate. The General proved that.

If she “demolished” Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the “best” candidate. That’s your logic here.

Clinton is super pro-corporate, what are you on about? She was unelectable and never should’ve run, she’s directly responsible for Trump.

Double whammy is a good idea.

I want to take a picture of a brick and duplicate it over and over, then zip those up and duplicate that zip into OneDtive until it tells me I can’t any more.

Oohh, that’s a good way to potentially break this. Just download a ton of useless stuff and upload it onto OneDrive. People could make this service really expensive for Microsoft.

If I do a job efficiently that doesn’t mean my boss should then get to then extract free labor out of me. It’s why hours alone are a poor way of judging labor value, and it results in a vicious cycle of demanding more and more productivity from workers with them getting less for it.

I think the work day for most types of work should be shortened with no reduction in pay because it’s been proven that many industries can reduce the work week to 32 hours with no drop in productivity, and in fact it comes with savings for the business (ex. less time running facilities and services, better use of resources).

If a customer is provided a quote before hand then that should just be the price, if the contractor can’t provide what was promised in the time frame they themselves gave then that’s on them.

There needs to come a point where the workers themselves start receiving the benefits of their own efficiency – when time is created it should be workers who get that time back for themselves, instead what we see is that the CEOs syphon up all that extra time for themselves and either work less or convert it into money for their own pocket.

This behavior is more a response to the notion that a work day should be 100% productivity at all times, but that’s not how most jobs work nor how human beings do work.

I get paid to do a certain job, if I’m given 6 hours to do a job and finish it in 3 and then do nothing for the next 3 hours that’s not me being lazy or taking advantage of my employer.

Until then we’ve included a complimentary hammer with each Tesla.

AI has a bad name because it is being pursued incredibly recklessly and any and all criticism is being waved away by its cult-like supporters.

Fascists taking up use of AI is one of the biggest threats it presents and people are even trying to shrugg that off. It’s insanity the way people simply will not acknowledge the massive pitfalls that AI represents.