Yes, but look at bud light. Boycotts can be hugely damaging. If people start boycotting Intel, Dell HP and other suppliers will happily offer amd instead. Similarly, companies with policies of not buying from suppliers with slave labour or supporting genocide may decide Intel falls in that category now. They do it as a PR exercise but ultimately it’s consumer sentiment that drives it.

Intel will need to decide if the sweetener is worth the risk. From war interrupting supply. From boycotts. From brand damage.

Or they are worried that Intel will pull out due to risk of consumer boycott and want to push the deal through.

I thought paying staff properly was the cool hipster thing to do? Not wage theft and fines.

Personally, I boycott. It’s much easier to boycott companies with terrible overpriced products.

It’s not that it matters. It’s that if an acronym is new, it makes sense to clarify its meaning until it’s clear to all.

It still can be. However, it’s often just a demonstration rather than a protest.

The king doesn’t reset the government and him interfering with our politics would probably lead to more support for us to be a republic.

There is a balance between authoritarianism and sensible regulation. China is too far one way, the USA is too far the other way. Freedom comes from the abilitiy for more people to live their lives as they please.

Protesting is important. Protecting civil rights is important. Australia goes too far on quashing disriptive protest, but is tolerant of peaceful organised protest. Disruptive protest is more effective.

Lol, no. That’s a very USA and guns culture centred view. Australia has weapons. We just don’t allow everyone to have them willy nilly. You need a licence and to properly store them. We see it as sensible and lament the deaths of all the USA children who die for so called freedom. It’s much more free here.

However this is a worrying sign of overreach. Luckily the USA has no such laws, like the patriot Act or the current proposal to register your address against online accounts. You know, to protect the children you’re all so fond of killing.

Well, the voice has no real power over government. The senate does. The method of electing the senate is also left up tot he government. If we trust them with that power, why would we not trust them with the power to legoslate for the voice in the same way.

As it’s in the constitution, they could not remove it. They could change it, and I would expect changes over time to make it more effective.

If the detail is being voted on now, we would need to have another referendum every time we make a change.

For me, it comes down to whether the concept of a voice is a good idea. Assuming we think it is, it’s up to the parties to campaign on how that should be. We can vote accordingly, just like every other policy. The only option off the table is no voice, unless they want to run on having another referendum.

Sure, there are those that think it shouldn’t be in the constitution. They are the same ones that removed it before, which is why it needs to be in the constitution. There are those that think it won’t work. They offer no alternative, and if it doesn’t work, we can vote again to remove it.

In a way it needs to be like that. If we are voting on the detail, which can be changed, people will feel misled. Were voting on the concept only.

Those looking for detail will be disappointed. These pamphlets don’t provide clarity either way. I don’t think it’s the fault of the aec, but rather how something like this is inserted into the constitution.

That’s a harder ask if people have already tried it and found it lacking.

How does that work from a user perspective? If they were subscribed to android@lemmy.world , would the subscription transfer over to the new community without them realising, or would they need to manually subscribe?

I don’t have a problem with communities being able to move. The users should be notified and have the option to transfer too or leave. Over time, the values may diverge.

I also think the power should rest with the mods to do so. However, it would be wise for them to consult the community. For larger communities, you’ll likely never have consensus, so someone needs to be able to decide. If any instance became hostile or overrun by undesirables, moving would make sense.

I imagine the current threat from meta will be divisive and some communities values may differ from the instance they are on.

Awesome Photoshop skills. Making zuck look like a robot (cyborg) takes a lot of work.

It’s speculation, but still relevant to technology. You’ll find speculation in most news sources about technologym, otherwise it’s just press releases. How large platforms develop is technology news.

In Musk’s case, he’s divisive so people are more likely to share or comment on posts about him. There’s also a large element of schadenfreude.

If you don’t think it should be here, downvote away. However, your low effort comment becomes more virtual trash than the post it intends to berate. Instead, you could post better content too.