Its either the fascists, or people trying to make money from tribalism.
Its either the fascists, or people trying to make money from tribalism.
"Thank you for the lemmings kind stranger!"
Define what makes a rust program "real" lol.
Any kind of library that does a lot of low-level stuff (kernel syscalls, custom binary reprs, ffi) will have to use unsafe. But most applications built using these libraries rarely need to use unsafe at all, because the libraries act as safe wrappers to make sure the app developer isn't accidentally violating invariants allowed by the "unsafe" keyword.
I guess they could put (federated reddit alternative) next to the link
Very important distinction.
It'd be pretty bad if hotels or restaurants started restricting access based on sex or race!
Another way to solve the issue is to have users and communities be instance-independent where the instances only provide storage for communities and users they want to support.
Well, Roe v Wade set a precedent, which was then reverted ~50 years later, so I'm not sure how much precedents apply to the supreme court (it definitely applies to lower courts tho)
Oh no my unjustified beliefs!
What about those who don't know who Neil Diamond is? XD
Give the lady her borgre!
People can do that now, but only for occupations that qualify as "speech". Owners of "public businesses" (i.e. places that you can walk in to) still aren't allowed to forbid entry to people arbitrarily.
I think that was the majority opinion's goal, they think the line between what is speech and what isn't should be spelled out more minutely with more legal precedent rather than what we had before where all speech in relation to selling a service was regulated under anti-discrimination statutes.
Who they gonna replace them with? Paid employees? That'd go against their whole business model! XD
Oh god, its This
I'm not sure about discrimination against customers based on ideology, but I'm pretty sure you can't discriminate against customers based on protected class (sex, race, orientation, etc.) What this supreme court case does (IIUC) is that companies are now allowed to not provide services to protected classes if those services constitute speech. So if you are a restaurant owner, or a hotel, you still can't refuse a gay couple, if you are a cake designer, you can't refuse to make a cake, but you can refuse to do anything remotely gay-related to that cake, if you are a web designer, you can refuse to make something altogether because the government can't restrict or compel speech (and graphic design is speech).