…One had law enforcement only trespassing, one had owner/manager only trespassing (as in, a random employee can’t do it, only the owner of the property or the person who is on the lease for the land/building), and the last was so loose a patron of a business telling someone to get lost was almost enough for the person trespassing to be arrested.

honestly, in my experience, this sounds more like policies of the property owners (or employer) than regulations or laws.

Especially since while it’s not specifically codified in federal law, SCOTUS has routinely accepted that the right to exclude is one of the core property rights inherent in property ownership- and consistently ruled in favor of property owners exercising control over their property. (Indeed, there have been instances where, when it was deemed that a property owner should have taken action to stop a trespasser, and that trespasser then harms some one; that they had a duty of care and were negligent. For example, any of the times that a convicted pedophile got hired by a daycare facility,)

there are exceptions that are frequently codified in state law, for example, a hunter retrieving wounded game, or kids retrieving a Frisbee. or a dog owner cleaning up after their dog (and, indeed, the dog taking the shit in the first place,).

Further more, all “agent of whatever” really means is that they are someone who is duly authorized to act on another’s behalf. For example, if you have power of attorney over a grandparent, you are their agent, acting on their behalf; or someone employed by the federal government, to do… stuff… they’re agents of the government. (Fun fact, this is why FBI and other federal law enforcement officers are ‘Special Agents’.). Security guards are agents of the property owners, and almost universally allowed to trespass individuals.

A trespasser is trespassed from a property by law enforcement at the request of the property owner. This is called a criminal trespass.
(snip)
In most places, a property owner must ask law enforcement to trespass the person off of the property before someone is considered legally or criminally trespassing. In most places a warning, either verbal or by sign or other means, must be given before a person can be criminally trespassed, but that is not automatic as the property owner may choose to not enforce it.

not true. I work in contract security training guards. have for years.

Trespassing generally only becomes illegal/criminal when the trespasser becomes aware that they are in fact trespassing. For examples, somebody wandering onto private property from public property, they could become aware of the fact. For example, if you have to jump a fence to get to where you were, or you passed a ‘no trespassing’ sign, or if someone is telling you you’re trespassing; or, for example, you’re there to vandalize stuff, or maybe shoplift.

The act of “trespassing” somebody is simply informing someone that they’re presently trespassing. You don’t have to be a cop to trespass someone; property owners have the right (and, generally, the obligation,) to control whose accessing their property and for what purposes. you can be asked to leave by a property owner or the agents thereof at any time, and that act of being asked is called “trespassing”.

As for when it can be enforced… that’s when the person is aware of their presence being unwelcome. Doesn’t matter if the property owner is there or not, exactly. no warnings have to be given, for example, if it’s reasonable that someone shouldn’t be there. for example, you intrude into a nuclear facility, we’re cuffing you up and handing you off, no warnings given. Similarly, if a group is throwing a kegger in a private parking lot, it’s generally unsafe to go out and warn the group.

Nope.

Not even with my partner.

And I don’t creep on hers. That’s just awkward, and any case… anything I might be interested in… that’s why they invented burner accounts.

That doesn’t mean I don’t share the thought behind comments/posts, but I’m not showing them my posts.

Why are you making it more complicated, just to ultimately limit the voice of people who are participating in government?
Like. Seriously.

It doesn’t matter what you do to make it less unfair. it’s still going to unfairly disenfranchise people from voting on all the issues. There’s nothing in your proposals that solve that. All you’re doing is making it even more complicated, and making it harder for anyone who has… a job, a family, goes to school or any combination thereof. I haven’t not worked in some capacity (school+job/career) less than 40 hours in my life. Most of it I’ve been working 2 or more jobs 60-80 hours a week. and lets be honest, people who are retired aren’t usually able to stay informed either.

how many bills do you think congress is currently votes on in a month? and that’s ignoring all the steps leading up to it (like committees and sub-committees. i assume you’d retain congress to draft the legislation and handle all that.)

in 2023, The senate had 351-some roll call votes, the house of reps had over 421. that’s just votes. With specific bills frequently being lumped in for shared votes. 30 and 35 a month, on average. and last year was low, because of the bipartisan ship fucking everything over.

Lets say you create a monthly ballot system with every thing on it. That’s still- probably- going to be more than 50 proposed bills up for voting. Some of them are quite large, like spending omnibus bills that are hundreds or thousands of pages. and that’s ignoring people playing games or putting up competing bills.

Do you really expect people to be able to actually be an informed voter while doing all the things necessary to maintain our lives and family in good health? Are you going to pay me- and everyone else- a full time wage to actually do that? because that’s the kind of effort you seem to think people can do.

Nobody has that kind of time on their hands. This is why we have representational governance in the first place.

so… how do you decide who gets to make that decision?

So they know you get 9 votes, they slap in 10 laws, each slightly different.

Now say they also added a few laws. Maybe played the same games. Do you add more total votes?who decides how to allocate votes?

No matter, the underdogs will never get enough votes to pass their competing legislation.

It would become an unmitigated disaster as it gets too complicated, and turns people off voting.

Okay. So hypothetically….

I’m most passionate about climate change and resiliency, toss in abortion access, gay rights, public education, a few other issues.

Ooops I’ve spent all my votes and along comes a budgeting bill for next year that defunds all of that. So much for all those votes.

Or a storm comes up and Florida needs emergency aid. Or fires in California. Or Texas or any where.

Suddenly, I don’t get a say in that because…. I participate?

If your goal is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, this fucks them even harder. The majority can afford to push legislation that doesn’t pass until the relevant minority can no longer vote and then push awful legislation that gets passed with 1 orn2 % of voters voting.

If we’re going to do direct democracy, then we need to give everyone and equal vote for every thing. anything that seeks to limit who can vote on what or how many times is inherently disenfranchising.

Even attempts to halt the tyranny of the majority- like, in point of fact, the senate, disenfranchises voters. (The reason the states only get 2 senators is because southern states were afraid they would be rolled over on account of their low population. So people who live where there’s more people lose voting power.)

I didn’t say it does.

But only allowing the people who are passionate about a given issue removes the ability to compromise on the issue. It’d polarize things; ensuring that everything was extremely one way or extremely the other way, and never in the middle.

that doesn’t mean it’s a good or just war. or that they’re willing to die for it. There are plenty of people who are retired military that are totally fine with sending other kids to die for stupid shit. Bush W served in the TX nat guard, for example, yet was perfectly willing to fabricate lies to get a war going in iraq. Rumsfeld was a navy pilot and was totally complicit in that as well.

And then there are the people who are habituated to the battlefield, and don’t know what to do with themselves when there’s not a war on.

And then there’s the assholes that just want to kill people without going to jail for it.

In no way does having served in the military mean their judgement is any better as to whether a war or cause is just. In fact, for comparison, Bernie Sanders never served because of his pacifist beliefs. in the contest of the War in Gaza, who do you think is on the right side of history? Him, or all the other senators who served in the military and are pro-Israel?

Sorry, but having served in the military does not make you inherently moral, ethical, or any less reactionary than the rest of us. Being willing to die for a thing, doesn’t make that a good thing.

Well. yes. it does strongly depend on what you intend to do with it.

Python is a great language that’s very broadly used; there’s a reason that Apache added the python API; after all. (and why Scala is plummeting.) I wouldn’t even say Pascal was all that useful, to me. I think I ‘learned it’ enough to get through the dumb book, and then went on to something else. C++ was more fun anyhow.

also nope.

Think about issues like Abortion. Do you really want to create a system where only the people who care the most are voting? Most americans support abortion rights- by a huge amount. But, suddenly you start making a question about voting for that or the spending bill… and something’s going to have to give, right?

Besides which, I’d much prefer a dispassionate voter base. A fairly large number of people on the abortion issue are very passionately apposed to it. But also kind of stupid; voting on pure emotion rather than facts or science or empathy.

so basically…

the only people who can decide if it’s appropriate to go to war are… what? soldiers?

and the only people who can draft, lets say, anti-trust legislation are… corpos who almost certainly love monopolies?

I don’t think that would end as well as one might imagine, even with checks and balances.

It’s also important to note that you might come out ahead in learning those abstract concepts using a harder language.

But my first language was Pascal. from a book stolen from my dad’s library. Then C++. I still wouldn’t call myself anything other than an amateur… I mean, my dad can do more with one line of C than most programmers can do in their entire career. (he really shouldn’t. but he does. Calls it “job security”.)

Oh yeah. they’re totally assholes.

Same goes for those “would you like to round up for <insert relevant children’s thing here>” programs. Fucking ghouls.

There is no such thing as a superfood. it’s all bullshit.

Like the Acacia berry stuff. not only are the levels of good-stuff in them comprable to other berries (Like strawberries, blackberries, blueberries, gooseberries. Basically it’s the same as, like, all berries.) you’re importing them from central america which means they’re not fresh, they’re processed, and they’ve lost a lot of that good stuff by the time it gets to you.

So yes. anyone telling you that “XYZ” is a superfood? bullshit. That simple. It’s just powdered mushrooms (“Adaptogenic mushrooms” whatever that means. looking at the ingredients list, it seems to just be common food shrooms.). While, yes, mushrooms are healthy, and can be delicious, There’s nothing inherently special about this product. (“they” say it has antinfamitory and other of the typical dribble the natural-remedy crowd says of like… everything… If there’s an effect it’s probably like “meh.”)

Personally, eating actual mushrooms seems more… uhm. palatable.

Basically, their goal is to get you in the store. the coupon usually only covers part of a meal that people typically buy, so you go in and you end up buying significantly more than you would have, covering the “loss”.

Futher, they can then declare the loss as a charitable contribution or something.

Also, they get to take credit for that one dollar donation and inflate their corporate “We Don’t Look Like Assholes” numbers.

this is one time I side with the NIMBY’s.

fracking is awful and we need to kick the oil habit anyhow. it absolutely fucks up the local enviroment, and destroys the water table. the full name is literally hydraulic fracturing… because the process is basically taking something you can’t normally get oil out of, pumping in a shit load of water until the bedrock shatters to fucking hell.

it lets you get to the oil, sure, but it also releases the oil (and all sorts of other shit, like gases) so that it gets into wells and everything else.

Basically the only people that are pro-fracking are the assholes that are perfectly okay fucking over every one else, and the assholes that take their money.

Yup.

But like, a “stylist” for the same cut would be significantly more.

At least, a round here the middle of the road stylists are all 60ish where the barbers are 35-40.

My guess is they mean, one capital letter, one lower case letter, a number, and a special character

what’s always amused me about these rules is that they exist because people are dumb. Technically, they lower the difficulty of the passwords slightly. ( for example, knowning that one character is a number reduces it to 10 options in stead of 10+26+26+whatever set of special characters)

anyhow. people should use password managers. just saying.

There’s an entire field of science projecting shapes from the surface of a sphere onto a planar surface going back centuries.

Suffice it to say, I don’t know you’d have to talk to a map-nerd.