I have only heard queer used as a pejorative.
Then you haven't been paying attention for the last 30+ years. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" has been an activist chant since the 90s, started by a group called Queer Nation. The Q in LGBTQ+ stands for queer. If you were involved with the queer community, you would know that it is used as a self-identifier for any non-heteronormative person regularly these days.
Before charges are even brought, he'll have a go fund me that raises 300k from other racists.
At minimum, responsibilities should be a primary point of discussion in interviews, and really it is usually on the job listing. And work culture should be a selling point that they want to talk to like it is the most important part of the job (it's not). The fact that they wont discuss either isn't a red flag. It is a flashing siren.
Also, I'm sick and tired of pretending that salary is not a primary consideration for both parties in this transaction. If you are cagey about money, I don't trust you, and I'm not interviewing anymore. Period. But I'm not pretending that I really want the job for funsies, and anything you pay me is just the cherry on top. I got bills to pay dude, and you want a functioning adult. Salary expectations from both parties should discussed in the first interview to validate that you are even in the same realm.
Danny the street. A sentient, mobile, non-binary, urban street comic book character from Doom Patrol who communicates via various features of the street like posters, signage, vent steam, etc. Why is that weird?
For the unacquainted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_the_Street
Danny is the easily one of, if not the, most unique character in comic book history. I love the weirdness.
For those unacquainted: Danny the Street - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_the_Street
To be fair, I've seen him in another stupider leather jacket that was reptile textured.
That is the opposite position that the moderator in the post took. Their position was that, on a macro level, there is no distinction between an American who disagrees with the Government's actions but fails to stop it and the American government itself. Apologizing, to them, wasn't about accepting guilt for the government. It was about trying to dissociate yourself from the actions of which they still put on every American.
I think its as bullshit take to simplify all Americans to their government as it is for any other nation, but it's also bullshit to try virtue signal at greenlanders to rid yourself of the guilt of the government's actions. There is a middle ground here, and I don't think dissociation is the solution either, unless that dissociation comes with action. We all need to accept accountability and responsibility for the state of things as much as we have any influence over, and we all need to stop making it others problems.
I mean... that is just good design. The main function should be the initializer and orchestrator of the logic. You should be able to look at the main function and tell, at a high level, what the program is doing. It should be usually pretty basic and procedural. Other functions handle the details and complexity.
I would think that that would be the bare minimum requirement to enforce a no fly zone like this, and even then it's not nearly enough. They certainly would never do such a thing though. Regardless, it won't stop them from manhandling and arresting those who continue to fly drones in the presence of their vehicles.
Ok, so I would argue that this is likely completely unlawful. Certainly untenable. The legal justification for the restricting flight privileges over certain government buildings is due to the security needs of a location that similarly has restricted access to your person. In other words, you need special access to go in there, and similarly you need special access to look into there, thus the justification for the no fly zone.
But a government vehicle in motion in public has no more restrictions to observation than any other vehicle in public. There is no restriction to your presence around these vehicles, nor recording them with equipment on your person. In fact, recording government operations that you have legal access to has repeated been upheld as a 1st amendment protected activity so long as you aren't interfering. Drone footage in public airspace does not constitute any more security access than one already possesses in a public space, where security is limited basically to entering the interior of the vehicle (and nothing a drone could see isn't in plain view). There is, therefore, no legal justification for restricting flight privileges in those spaces.
The only reason that they are trying to restrict this is because they are already violating people's 1st Amendment right to record their activities, knocking phones out of people's hands, confiscating devices, threatening or actually arresting those recording, etc. They don't want to be recorded while they kidnap, assault, beat up, and kill people, and it is much harder to knock down a camera attached to a drone 100 feet in the air. I say tough shit, fascists. It should be 100% protected activity. I cant wait for this to be struck down.
But also, how in the hell can someone be in violation of a no fly zone that constantly moves and and does so without any way to track it? How are you supposed to know that your drone is within HALF A MILE of a ICE vehicle, most of which are unmarked SUVs anyway. You could feasibly be standing right next to one and not know that you are. You could be flying your drone completely legally and then the no fly zone moves over your drone, likely with absolutely no way of even knowing that. It would make flying a drone a constant danger of spontaneously and unknowlingly breaking the law. No such law could ever be considered reasonable. It is far too broad.
Yeah, it's not the meat, to me. It's the crunch. No thank you. Also, we rarely eat all parts of the shellfish. We typically remove or otherwise avoid the digestive tract, for example. Can't do that when they are tiny, but the same volume of crickets has as much poop in it as the equivalent volume of shrimp.
If they're a non-hetero person and you use it casually, I highly doubt they'll give a shit. If you use it like a pejorative, then is one. Like the word "Jew". That's the common word for those in that religion/ethnicity and very often used to self identify. But in certain contexts with certain intonation, it's understood to be a slur. The N word is less polite even among black people, but it's still a common word used to self identify for those in the black community, but is still very much a slur when used by those outside the community. Calling someone a genius can be a compliment, or an insult depending on context. Both can be true.