IfOnlyYouKnew

This is about foreign customers only, so as an attempt to abolish the constitution, it is severely flawed in respecting it enough to keep its distance.

I can't think of any US service I am using that doesn't already require KYC? None of the large providers will let you get far without a credit card, as far as I remember?

Since the discussion here will consider itself mostly with upright revolutionaries being disenfranchised by such insult to their liberties, it is worth noting that when the revolutionaries are foreigners, the US often doesn't have the same incentive to disenfranchise them as it might have for domestic troublemakers.

In fact the US has quite a track record of granting rights to foreigners in excess of what they find at home, and even when it concerns allies: request by European courts and law enforcement are regularly rejected based on US norms when, for example, someone hosts their hat speech blog with an US-only provider.

Well some authoritarian regime would otherwise just do it whenever it got started, and it would require maybe a week?

I have all the love and appreciation in the world for enjoying a weekend spent in configuration files. But I feel the need to state the obvious:

This is a long blog post ending with a preview to "future installments of the guide" to use nix, while almost everything that you need to know with homebrew is `brew install/update/upgrade/uninstall`, and I have rarely run into any trouble with brew, and none at all in recent memory.

In civil law, the roles of plaintiff and defendant are largely interchangeable. If you order food and don't like it, the restaurant might sue you for payment. Or you need to sue the restaurant if you already paid. It's rather arbitrary, being only based on the order of the exchange of food and money.

In any case, take it up the law, because it is as I said: the burden of proof is different, its "preponderance of the evidence", i. e. 50%.

They do risk mounting fines by continuing the practice.

This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply.

“They’ve decided that picking the cotton is better than refusing to do so”.

Edit, because people share a characteristic with heavy metals: the point is that a “choice” made under economic duress is not made freely. Slavery is an extreme example used to make the point more obvious. The threat of violence used to compel people to work the fields is obviously worse than, but not necessarily qualitatively different from, the threat of abject poverty if one refuses to take low-paying insecure jobs.

As I said, it’s debatable if the guy’s reach needed to be limited, the point you are arguing.

What’s not debatable is that the breathless outrage-bait under discussion misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach with a straw-man argument, and so did you.

I thought we’d gotten over this thing where people thing they appear smart because they copy & paste instead of using curl?

I feel like when you diss journalists, it should generally be for something they actually did wrong, not preemptively based on your imagination.

If they are so terrible, there should be no need to invent stuff.

When people read something like this post, and they are predisposed to the idea, it’ll reinforce their skepticism of „the mainstream media“. If you want to test yourself, make a bet of how many media outlets will run with the story in the manner outlined above, then check in a few days. My prediction: you won’t see it in the NYT, WSJ, BBC, or on CNN.