Anyway, how’s your sex life?

We started the process two years ago and I’m helping friends get sorted too. It sucks

Yes my family and I fly out next week

Read the room

Hear that everyone, it could be worse

Thanks for the enlightening framing. When they’re rounding up people they don’t like we should tell them it’s ok, it’s been worse

Nobody fucking cares. This isn’t some academic exercise to rank crazy times. This is the very real political strategy of a party about to take power in the US. This view from nowhere shit is so exhausting.

It’s not just real it’s their actual political strategy. This isn’t fringe shit, this is what they will do when they take office.

It’s impossible to do without signing the with the valid cert. I think destroying the anonymity is the point

No you’re right. The ARF just ignored that constraint and intentionally built in a back door here. From the linked article:

However, the current ARF stipulates that law enforcement authorities can retroactively trace pseudonyms back to their legal identity. The provisions therefore „strongly contradicts the legal requirements,“ epicenter.works writes.

You keep using all the classic rhetorical terms reserved for people who have argued themselves into a corner. You’re not very good at this. cIaO CiAo

Bad arguments like “the president of the United States tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.” Man the gaslighting from you is wild.

I don’t dislike nuclear, I dislike bad arguments and bad decision making. The president wields enormous power over the stability and infrastructure required for nuclear to be safe and sustainable. You cannot have watched the debate last night, or the events of Jan 6, and feel confidence that anyone involved can be trusted with a goldfish, much less consistently providing a stable nation capable of securing nuclear plants.

If your argument is “don’t worry a sitting president may have staged an insurrection, but it was incompetent so it’s totally ok to leave him in charge of nuclear plants” then yeah, I think that’s a bad argument. And embarrassing

The sitting president did it…the commander in chief. I get you like nuclear but this is embarrassing

That bunch of idiots are the ones who control the tanks, artillery, planes, and funding for infrastructure that is required to keep nuclear plants from melting down

We just had a failed insurrection four years ago, wtf are you doing pretending like this can’t happen

Nuclear power relies on stable, safe, and advanced nations not like, I dunno, starting a land war in Europe that threatens to flood the continent with fallout.

If they are checking data brokers or aggregators it’s not really a background check. Carefully read any consent you give for a potential employer to perform a background check. Look for the records they are accessing and make a determination based on that language.

It is possible that some vendor is the space incorporates data brokers into their service, and that’s hard to tell. But they still should ask for your consent, I believe.

I wouldn’t argue “old people suffer from cognitive impairment” is a valid criticism of a politician without clinical evidence that that politician is suffering from cognitive impairment. This just smacks of ageism.

Neat, it’s still spying

Me too \s

I know those are all real but this sentence is objectively hilarious