I dunno, drool onto his bib?

Big C. That’s why it’s got the ++.

Why is this posted in work reform?

Handheld DPVs are point and go. A mounted thruster would be similar except the pointing comes from you maneuvering your body, which is pretty much how kicked propulsion works as well. Fine maneuvering isn’t where much energy is expended.

In the spirit of Guy Fawkes Day where his failure and death are celebrated?

I don’t know when I’d want to use this over a dive propulsion vehicle. Not kicking at all will reduce oxygen use even more than machine assisted kicking.

I guess it leaves your hands free while moving, but with similar amounts of engineering effort you could mount thrusters on the user and free up their hands too. I think DPVs are partially used as separate devices for safety though.

Literally this entire conversation you haven’t even tried to address the instigating criticism of the article both using the wrong-headed definition of class as education and that their statistics are filtered to create a Republican bias unrelated to class. It talks about class being a fuzzy term and other races existing, but when it tries to demonstrate the problem it’s just white women and the non-college educated “class”. All while relaying absurd quotes about how they like people that talk to them directly and are successful through their own hard work like Trump.

And while people do have kind of a fuzzy definition of working class, that definition isn’t education. Most people identify as “working class” and fewer than 1% of respondents defined it by education. Media and think-tanks that have latched onto “non-college educated = working class” do so intentionally. They want it to represent a dwindling thing from when boomers worked hard and didn’t complain, not anything to do with labor and capital.

I never said it did. I said the article and it’s hard metrics all exclude working class people to paint a picture of a conservative working class. The point is we don’t know, from this article, that Democrats have lost ground with the working class, because whenever numbers are involved they choose measures that don’t actually measure the working class and specifically intertwine them with aspects that are more conservative.

Even your final line implicitly associates education with class, when it couldn’t be further from the truth for a lot of people today. Do you think college educated baristas don’t think they’re working class? And that’s even by the income-based measure intended to put a “middle-class” buffer to protect from any sort of worker vs. capital framing.

In a class sense, those who must work to support their continued safety and health. If you’ll spend most of your life at the whiims of a boss because you have to, you’re working class.

In the perverted income-based American form, it’s usually used as a euphemism for “lower-middle” that at least has some inklings of class involved. Even there it’s very much not “non-college educated”. Jim Bob who owns 4 car dealerships is not college educated.

Working class is not “doesn’t have a bachelor’s degree”. Using that measure with two decades between is biasing it toward older people. Twenty years ago, the number of 30 year olds without a college degree was much higher than it is today. And many of those young college graduates are working paycheck to paycheck at the mercy of their employer.

The conflation of education with class and use of measures that amplify non-class related correlations with conservativism feels kind of sloppy when trying to highlight women being forgotten in the idea space of “working class”. The same thing continues when the measure of choice is later “white working class women”.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be trying to win those voters, but starting out with “working class” and then relying on statistics that have major non-class correlations seems like it’s playing into the exact same issues as pretending “working class” means men does.

In this case Google said no. Well really they asked how the request was related to customs, but the effect was not giving the info.

I agree that not recording things in the first place is better, but in this case it wasn’t a warrant. They could have just said no.

You may have clicked on some advertising or something. The Independent is an established newspaper.

Attorneys for Georgia Fort, a journalist and one of the defendants in the Minnesota case, wrote in a court filing that they were “stunned” when they realized that the government had obtained logs detailing six months’ of Fort’s calls and text messages from T-Mobile after the government sent a customs summons to the telecom provider. The attorneys allege that Fort was never notified by either T-Mobile nor the government.

Anyone have any recommendations for a cell service provider that won’t just roll over for the government?

NBC News is a national news organization.

National news organization cover national news, because such things are of interest to their natural reader base, not irrelevant local crime.

Some guy was in an accident and left the scene. Call the wire service!

NBC is a national news organization.

So what? This new crime isn’t related to his pending case and doesn’t relate to any larger societal question. How is this national news?

The local police should also need to go to court to access their own cameras. The 4th amendment protects against police surveiling people without a warrant.

Do effigies count as monuments?