they’re probably already covered for that

Can you ELI5 how an automatic disqualifier based on a conviction that doesn’t account for whether or not someone is a victim doesn’t automatically disqualify those victims without just saying they’re “probably already covered”

Edit to add: I don’t see the relevance of what person C says if person A and B aren’t going to be taken at their word, either. Durbin’s words on the topic matter only as much as anyone else’s in a vacuum, and his claim as to what is and isn’t currently policy is as meaningless as anyone else’s if it’s unsubstantiated

I don’t think Kash is attending most interviews, and I while I use someone’s name as a reason to raise an eyebrow and look into something more than I typically would, I don’t base my reason for it being bad solely on the name of the person who did it.

So like, for real though, the justification for this was that there are people who are victims of trafficking that are forced into this, right?

At face value, that makes sense. I’m not sure whether every state that convicts for beastiality would also create exceptions for victims of trafficking who were forced into it, they certainly do not when it comes to other offenses.

Is there something I’ve missed?

Neat!

You open ports to internet?

Thank you! Apparently my wife has used LaTeX previously, so I might even have a leg up. Thanks again, I’ll check out that template :)

CV in LO Writer; my bad.

For the latter two: never really paid mind to latex and never heard of typst. I’ll give typst a shot :)

That’s exactly the nuance I’m longing for; are you comfortable sharing which state? The precedent I’m familiar with uses a person’s general expectation of privacy in a given environment as a test, which I understand but disagree with. I would much rather the standard be how your state handles it.

Yeah, this is pretty much my experience. I don’t really use Excel, but anytime I brush up my resume LO makes me a little sad.

If you’re referring to states where 2 party consent laws carry weight outside of phone calls, then to my not-a-lawyer knowledge it requires there be a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is pretty well established to exclude public (or private but open to public, like a mall) spaces. I think that exclusion is generally BS, but I really do recognize the difficult balance of freedom of press vs individual privacy. I just think there could be a good bit more nuance

Holy shit

You’re telling me that is routing requests through a model 70x the price?

Oh! Too early for me haha, I misread your comment (still woulda missed the joke, honestly)

For me it’s the phrasing more than anything

Huh? Not sure I follow

Why do you think you know what you’re talking about?

This is hilarious

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/23/israeli-military-gaza-war-microsoft

Yes, go with the MIC, actual fascist supporting megacorp to stick it DO

Honest to God, I’m not a tin foil hat kinda guy, but I can’t wait to read the papers on the strategies around centralizing technically adept ‘activists’ (WH definition lol) onto cooperative platforms by hugely exaggerating tiny shit like this in 40 years. This is even more poorly sighted than the Mullvad stances from a few weeks ago.

How many killings did digital ocean orchestrated with AI?

It’s this

This is a felony in most 2 party consent states.

I have found it in my heart to forgive you, though I cannot promise that grace again; tread carefully (I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings ❤️)

Your comment reads like a LinkedIn post and it pisses me off