Then you will have software that doesn’t work. This is not a Firefox problem, or a problem of extensions, or anything but a user problem.

If your 1998 Toyota Camry is struggling to haul a cargo container up a hill it’s not the car’s fault. You’re doing it wrong. Whatever tasks you’re trying to do with 1000 tabs, a web browser is the wrong tool for the job.

Maybe don’t have a THOUSAND tabs

Ok, I didn’t ask that, though. That is a completely different discussion that no one is having.

Ok but they are administering and moderating their instance according to their political beliefs about a specific nation. They’re not defending China’s economic policies at Tiananmen Square or their notions on tariffs with Uyghurs. I don’t think you answered the question in the way you think you did.

What’s that got to do with censoring some discussions about some countries?

I don’t know that I’d agree that the political beliefs of the lemmy.ml admins are lemmys greatest strengths. Certainly federation amd open source contributions are core to lemmy but support of a specific nation’s policies and actions certainly is not.

Mods and admins have enormous power to shape what can be discussed using comment moderation tools, bans, and promoted content. At the very least you should be aware of what potential biases an admin has that may inform how they moderate.

Depends on what you mean by matter. The point of the criminal justice system is, theoretically, to determine who breaks the law, and to punish people who break the law. In that sense it matters because Trump was found guilty in a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

If what you mean is that it will change the politics of America, certainly. Trump is now running with the specter of a conviction hanging over him. Even assuming appeals and pardons, that fundamentally changes the nature of the election. It raises real and serious questions about how he could serve if under house arrest, parole, or in prison. It forces us to reckon with the balance of powers in this country - can a person dodge justice because they attain high office, or do we hold them accountable no matter what?

If what you mean is in reality, no it probably won’t do shit.

So far that hasn’t really been tested in court, and when it has (Trump v. Anderson) it’s not been upheld in that way.

Look I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying it’s not really that straightforward.

And why do old people randomly capitalize nouns? Every Sentence reads like the just read the Written Word for the first time and wanted to give It a Try For Themselves

Those are not the minimum qualifications. They should be read as “anyone who meets them is eligible” rather than “no one who fails to meet them is eligible.” The Rehnquist court found that states could not add a felony exclusion for Congressional candidates in the 1990s and that is broadly considered to extend to the Presidency as well. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456

If the constitution doesn’t say it, it’s not typically intended to be assumed true. The constitution doesn’t say that felons can’t be president - so we can’t assume that the states or congress could pass laws forbidding them from being president. It specifically says you can’t be president if you’re 34 or were not born a US citizen. If the writers wanted to exclude felons, they would have said so.

Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.

Me too \s

Because leaf blowers are fucking annoying and we need hope

There isn’t necessarily a problem but it is definitely circumventing at least the spirit if not the letter of the law by not allowing data subjects to provide fully informed consent.

Legally obfuscation can be anonymization depending on how it’s done

Depending on the data structures there are many methods to anonymize without supervision. None of them are perfect but the don’t have to be - just legally defensible.

That is very much what the EU AI act is trying to get at. LLMs are covered under GPDR and EU AI act, it is not a simple matter

Assuming it is PII when you store it. This is a complicated discussion that will absolutely come down to what Slack can defend to a regulator

That’s not true at all. If you obfuscate the PII it stops being PII. This is an extremely common trick companies use to circumvent these laws.

That’s not strictly speaking true. It requires more oversight and mechanisms of control but those very well could already be in place.