

Blue No matter who am i right guys?


Blue No matter who am i right guys?


I don’t like the idea of “banning” users from accessing a website. But I am certainly in favor of banning sovereign companies from doing business with the company that owns a website, and seizing any physical assets that the website company owns within the laws reach.


Fetterman gets his turn at being the rotating villain for why the dems can’t fillibuster the funding bill.


Just the dumbest people drifting through life enabled by the worst people (who are also pretty dumb).


You need to understand subnetting. Allowing 192.168.1.0/24 also allows 192.168.1.135/24 In fact 192.168.1.135/24 shouldn’t be valid syntax at all, but it is easier to accept it and then let subnet math fix the mistake.
I assume your router is 192.168.1.135 for whatever reason, so as long as your router is contained in the configured iptables allowed network, it’ll work with all of the following networks.
192.168.1.135/32
192.168.1.134/31
192.168.1.132/30
192.168.1.128/29
192.168.1.128/28
192.168.1.128/27
192.168.1.128/26
192.168.1.128/25
192.168.1.0/24
192.168.0.0/23
… And 22 even larger networks.
If you don’t configure a subnet mask for the rule, iptables will accept the IP address you put in as a single host, the /32 is implied. The same behavior would be seen using any kind of network filter, though they may not allow you to specify 192.168.1.135/24, they may require a bit boundary, but mathematically, it’s the same.


Why is there a need to comply with foolish laws? I’m sure I type stuff on lemmy.ml or elsewhere on the internet that doesn’t comply with some idiot law somewhere in like Myanmar or the DPRK. Why would I concern myself with those laws.


Not black text on white, but light grey/purple on dark grey was pretty popular with Sun Microsystems. I think OG Apple Macintosh used Black on White, or at least close enough colors.
That said I use something like this for work.


Sorry. Mea Culpa. I was expressing my frustration with the spirit of the law, making discussion about the details of the law moot. My comment was directed at the contents you posted, not at you for posting them.


Removed by mod


we should instead ban advertising
This is the solution. If companies cannot profit off of their platforms, they will not have them any longer. Literally just ban all advertising. Amend all free-speech laws in all countries to define speech as rights of individual citizens, with corporations explicitly excluded.


I guess if you don’t see any difference between a government supported telecom company and a company that exists in different nation that has a necessarily hostile relationship to the local government, then sure they are comparable.
Why do you think he is a sellout? He was funded by AIPAC from the beginning, and the DNC (also a full throated aipac suppoter) made him the only choice from the beginning.