Covered in a previous comment. Floyd was complaining he couldn't breathe before police even restrained him. The autopsy also showed he had a lethal concentration of fentanyl in his blood. He died of a drug overdose.
Also, the bodycam footage clearly shows him resisting arrest. And the fact that police found him in the driver's seat of a vehicle with fentanyl in his system means he was committing a DUI.
And despite all this, the cop was still fired, so it's still not an example of cops escaping punishment.
This comment has no relevance to anything. I never said law-abiding is a requirement for life.
But I can all but guarantee you will not be able to find more than one or two examples of police killing a law-abiding citizen and receiving no punishment. It doesn't happen.
That doesn't happen which is the point. If it did, the cops would get fired. Pretty much the only time cops kill somebody is when they're resisting arrest after committing a serious crime. All of the high profile police-involved deaths from the last year fit this description:
George Floyd - resisting arrest after committing a DUI, died of fentanyl overdose not police action (confirmed by autopsy + bodycam footage showing him claiming an inability to breathe even before police had started to restrain him).
Rayshard Brooks - DUI, discharged a weapon at a police officer while resisting arrest.
Breonna Taylor - caught in the crossfire after her drug dealer boyfriend opened fire on the police while executing a lawfully obtained warrant.
Cops almost never kill law-abiding citizens in the line of duty, so I doubt you'll be able to find much evidence supporting this claim. And no, you're not a law-abiding citizen if you die resisting arrest after committing a DUI.
And for those that aren't familiar with Caltrain, that train blasts its horn two or three times before each stop and the horn is so loud that you can hear it from a mile away. Living as close to the train as that house is would be miserable.
Every website on the open web is a walled garden. Attacking Facebook for doing something every other website does is an attack on the open web.
Your argument is tantamount to saying the US isn't a free country because you have to take your shoes off when you visit your friend's house. And then saying your friend should be required to pay you for taking your shoes off.
They could very easily opt out of getting scraped by Google. They choose not to though because it is beneficial to them to have Google help people find their content.
Also note, Australia has specifically said removing article snippets from search results is not enough for Google to avoid payment. This legislation is not about protecting websites from content theft. It's solely about the Australian government forcing Google and Facebook to pay the propagandists that helped them get elected.
"Money is made up therefore it serves no purpose" is just a bafflingly implication. Care to provide any detail at all about how your moneyless society is going to work?
That post is three hours old with 1000+ points but is somehow ranked below multiple older posts with fewer points. It's currently ranked #27 putting it at the bottom of the homepage. It seems somebody is manipulating HN's ranking in effort to push it off the front page.
Let's see if the DOJ goes after them for predatory pricing first. Twitter may have bought themselves enough favor with the Biden administration that he'll let it slide.
Yup, the argument that they must be evil because they're named after a crystal ball from Lord of the Rings is one of the least convincing things I've ever heard. I have no idea why this is so consistently parroted on this forum.
How exactly do you think Australia is going to enforce this mandate if Google has no presence in Australia. Are they going to have the military invade California?
I'm starting to think that the degeneration of society into a 1984-style dystopia may now be unavoidable. We need to take power back from big tech and we need to do it now.
Entirely depends on what the goals of the union are. If you want to improve your position in search rankings, a union is not going to help you. If you're a youtube creator who wants a larger cut of advertising revenue, a youtube creators union may make sense.
I find it unlikely that there's any issue that cuts across all of Google's customers (advertisers, publishers, cloud users, gsuite users, etc), so a Google Customers Union probably does not make sense.
Also, the bodycam footage clearly shows him resisting arrest. And the fact that police found him in the driver's seat of a vehicle with fentanyl in his system means he was committing a DUI.
And despite all this, the cop was still fired, so it's still not an example of cops escaping punishment.
So you're wrong on all counts. Try again.