I don't have a problem blocking it, just seems like a pro Russian influence operation to me, since I don't know anything about this group or the culture.

I'm curious if anyone feels they get the same degree of workplace protection the concept of tenure for professors?

• Some contractors get protection if it's built into their contracts
• Unions create termination restrictions
• Military gets sanctuary for their last two years before twenty years service, then usually kicked out, unless they're generals
• you can't legally fire someone because color, religion, orientation, etc

What makes professors different or not different?

You can fire retail workers for anything not illegal

Based on your stance, if professors should be special, why?

If not, do you believe we won't get good ones all the sudden if they can't have tenure?

I'll try to find specific arguments made by opposing legislation, but but not necessarily asking for people just to verbally slay conservative/liberals. There's already a million posts for that.

Ah yeeeah!

If there was ever a time to email your reps...

This is interesting.

Firstly, I love that states inherently have the power to set their own laws. This allowed Oregon to be a great large scale experiment for drug policy.

I saw some interesting quotes:

But estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show, among the states reporting data, Oregon had the highest increase in synthetic opioid overdose fatalities when comparing 2019 and the 12-month period ending June 30, a 13-fold surge from 84 deaths to more than 1,100.

Despite public perception, the law has made some progress by directing $265 million dollars of cannabis tax revenue toward standing up the state's new addiction treatment infrastructure.

I guess since only cannabis is sold, it's the only taxable substance in the mix.

Some lawmakers have suggested focusing on criminalizing public drug use rather than possession. Alex Kreit, assistant professor of law at Northern Kentucky University and director of its Center on Addiction Law and Policy, said such an approach could help curb visible drug use on city streets but wouldn't address what's largely seen as the root cause: homelessness.

Homelessness leads to drug use? Or drug use leads to homelessness? Couldn't it be either?

In the first year after the law took effect in February 2021, only 1% of people who received citations for possession sought help via the hotline, state auditors found.

Critics of the law say this doesn't create an incentive to seek treatment.

Thoughts:

• Maybe just start with cannabis and see how that goes? Or do we really need to progress collectively to heroine, meth, cocaine, MDMA?

• Is the major public health crisis the use of more illicit drugs, or overdoses? Is possible that recreational use of cocaine/MDMA/others wouldn't be as big of a crisis as meth and fentanyl?

• Should heroine be legal for use?

• Should MDMA be legal for use?

• Should cocaine be legal for use?

( I am not advocating for or against use of these substances with this post. Posted for discussion/interest. Questions are posed for discussion. )

Now, before you go ape shit on Republicans are all....

Instead, I'm curious about the matter of running vs voting.

Do you believe you should only be able to run for a party you voted for?

Does this protect the party? Or limit candidates (assuming it's a candidate you don't disagree with)?

Are there down sides to this?

What is if a moderate ran for Republican, but he voted Democrat a few times, or vise versa?

Would it be good if a middle of the road person ran instead of a more partisan candidate?

Lastly, I'm not advocating for this guy. Only discussion about the situation.

Far out dude...

I am super interested to see how this goes. I've heard studies from western states have shown encouraging results in some people.

It only took 50 years to circle back to considering these things might have benefits beyond getting high or hearing colors.

On July 25, 2023, the states of Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa, along with intervenors American Water Works Association and National Rural Water Association, petitioned the Eighth Circuit to review the EPA’s new rule. This rule requires states to review and report cybersecurity threats to their public water systems (PWS).

The states’ brief argues that the EPA’s Cybersecurity Rule unlawfully imposes new legal requirements on states and PWSs. It also contends that the rule exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority by ignoring congressional actions that limit cybersecurity requirements to large PWSs and by changing the criteria for sanitary surveys through a memorandum

And then there a bunch of PLCs at water utilities compromised:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/28/federal-government-investigating-multiple-hacks-of-us-water-utilities-00128977

https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2023/11/28/exploitation-unitronics-plcs-used-water-and-wastewater-systems

https://apnews.com/article/water-utilities-hackers-cybersecurity-1c475f5d2ef3b5d52410c93bdeab3aad

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-breach-us-water-facility-via-exposed-unitronics-plcs/

So many more...

Now, I can understand arguments about jurisdictions, but would the exact same requirements coming from CISA instead of the EMP have been OK, or where these places just whining about any kind of oversight? At the end of the day, they look a little foolish.

This episode of Security Now covered Google's plan to deprecate third party cookies and the reaction from advertising organizations and websites.

The articles and the opinions of the show hosts are that it may have negative or unintended consequences as rather than relying on Google's proposed ad selection scheme being run on the client side (hiding information from the advertiser), instead they are demanding first party information from the sites regarding their user's identification.

The article predicts that rather than privacy increasing, a majority of websites may demand user registration so they can collect personal details and force user consent to provide that data to advertisers.

What's your opinion of website advertising, privacy, and data collection?

• Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?
• What's all the fuss about, you don't care?
• Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?
• Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?
• Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?
• Is this no different from using any other technology platform that's free (If it's free, you're the product)?
• Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?