"slave" means someone who cannot choose to stop working for another. If you can seek alternate employment or even just choose to stop working there, you're not a slave.
It's common practice to use the noun in a poetic sense, such as "wage slave" or "corporate slave", but such usage doesn't rise to expanding the definition of the word.
The article is about decentralization of assignment of IP addresses,.not CDNs or social networks.
It's like "imagine if you and your friends could just make your own phone system by making up your own numbers without having to rent them from telecommunications companies "
Whatever device you're using to post to Lemmy can easily handle "thousands of transactions per day". You're off by several orders of magnitude before transaction processing is a scaling concern.
CDNs exist to reduce lag and optimize media file delivery. They can be decentralized, and internally essentially are, but having a neutral clearing-house helps solve the "leech" problem that thinks like BitTorrent suffer from.
https://thecookingfacts.com/what-are-the-ingredients-in-campbells-cream-of-mushroom-soup/
The condensed soups themselves contain cream and call for milk as the mixin. Your scare quotes are nonsensical.
(The real "problem" with canned soup is the sodium content, and maybe exaggerating how hard it is to make soup at home.)
He can try.
Each of the fifty states literally has its own legal system, which are as a rule very particular about the separation of powers.
If Trump signs an EO directing the FCC to declare AI a."telecommunications" product.that states aren't allowed to regulate, there'd be that same week ten to fifty lawsuits by the states asserting that the EO was unconstitutional and had zero effect.
What the AI oligarchs want is for the FCC to decide this on their own without an EO, or for Congress to pass a law. (Although Scotus has made noises about lifting what can be done without Congress in other areas ...)
Can I go on the record here as saying this is sexist bullshit?
Scouts letting girls in does not make them somehow not "boy-friendly". It just lets dads and moms and brothers bring their daughters and sisters to do "boy-things"
So, if you’re still for collective ownership of the means of production...
Note that most self-described "socialists" aren't literally suggesting we ban the ownership class, declare the value of all stocks to be $0, and force every corporation to operate as employee-owned collectives. They're usually arguing for things like "expand our old-age health-insurance program to just cover everyone" or "make the city buses not charge a per-ride usage fee."
The hate against "socialism" is precisely because Karl Marx and some 20th century communists used it to mean something different, and then the right wing of United States used that label to try and smear every social program since the ban of slavery. Now we have two entirely different and incompatible meanings, and both a lot of bad-faith actors who intentionally conflate the two and a bunch of good-faith actors who aren't even aware there's a difference.
If each and every person should matter then It should be ok to recognize each and every person for what they are being targetted for. And I see this law as doing just that.
Please note that, by all accounts I've seen, Italy's femicide law does not cover any similar offense against men. It's an elevated offense to try and reduce the disproportionate number of Italian women who are killed by intimate partners.
That's a strong argument about whether this law is justified, not whether or not it's sexist.
If the standard for sexism is "unfair" treatment instead of "unequal" treatment, then proponents of things like a lower minimum wage for women would argue that their proposed inequality is "fair".
Thank you for responding all the same, btw
We don't define in law the assisted suicide of a white cis man as categorically less severe than the assisted suicide of a black genderqueer female.
Are you familiar with the US Supreme Court case Moritz v. Commissioner (which my wife brought to my attention after she saw the movie.)?
An important advance in feminist law was literally about a man who wanted a tax deduction but was denied because the deduction was meant for women.
So, what's the link to this english-language translation of the law in question?
Here's an unattributed quote presumably from such from a BBC article:
The Italian law will apply to murders which are "an act of hatred, discrimination, domination, control, or subjugation of a woman as a woman", or that occur when she breaks off a relationship or to "limit her individual freedoms."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dzp050yn2o
As described in the above quote, it seems exactly as sexist as I presumed -- special protection in the law for cis women, which categorically excludes cis men, trans men, and trans women from its protection.
Do you have a contradictory summary or, ideally, a link to the actual text and a professional translation?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/execute
"Execute" primarily means "carry out", not "kill". The latter definition is an adaption from the person designated to carry out the act of killing people for violating the law, which presumably at one point was done directly by the hereditary executive.