You might need to disclose social media accounts, phone numbers, email accounts, and a lot of other information, regardless of your burner: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dz0g2ykpeo
Depends on when that goes into effect and how thoroughly it's actually implemented.
Isn't that highly suspicious? Or are you preparing burners with years of alternate social profiles activity? Because blatantly lying to the authorities is not something I'd take easily...
Why lie? If they ask you why there isn’t anything on there, just say you brought a cheap replacement phone because you didn’t want to lose or break your expensive daily device while traveling. Or because you don’t want it stolen or hacked when you’re in a foreign country. All valid reasons. Pick and choose whatever is most accurate for you.
What kind of business are you talking about? If you're chasing a moving target, or worse, building little more than an AI Wrapper, you've willingly signed up for that risk.
I thought it was commonly understood that most people have racial biases, unconscious or conscious; that's the premise of most equitable programs. I am just aware of mine. I am not saying that's a good thing or making any claims about any kind of people.
I was making the point that people with racial biases are common, usually harmless, and we probably shouldn't call for their blanket execution.
I think it is strange to say that admitting I have biases is a bannable offense.
It will make more sense if you consider the context in which you're posting: a large, anonymous internet forum which is prone to bursting into flames when provoked on divisive topics.
Even if we take the most charitable interpretation of what you posted—say, something like: honest exploration of racial prejudice within ourselves—the tiny text blobs that we have to communicate with here are not a genre that can handle casual detonations like "I just don't like black people very much". That would require a much stronger and more secure container than this sort of internet forum can provide, not to mention safety and confidentiality that don't exist here. Comments like what you posted are simply going to blow up a thread like this into an even more violent conflict than it already is, and that's not something we're ok with.
As I said, that's under the most charitable interpretation, which I don't personally find to be the likeliest. Your GP comment included plenty of other things that support a less savory reading.
Also, this pseudo-debate about who should or should not be "executed" is puerile and obviously off-topic on this site, but I'm not singling you out for that, since plenty of other users were contributing to it.
I disagree with your framing about not wanting a civil war.
At this point it's between the fascists taking over unopposed and them maybe losing this civil war. I'd rather take the chance than give up without a fight.
I agree with the framing of "rather you than me", fwiw.
Regardless of what happens, it is not the case that insider trading isn't illegal for members of Congress, except for some technicalities:
- The act of 2012 does not purport to make insider trading by congressmen illegal. Rather, it purports to make explicit that insider trading by congressmen was illegal before it was passed.
- Insider trading isn't illegal for anyone, in the particular sense that there is no law making it a crime (or any other kind of violation). It exists purely as a construct of the SEC's interpretation of a law that doesn't mention it.
Not about quality. They want the experience of going to a cafe where the coffee is made and served by humans. These cafes exist along side automated coffee.
