Except that is not true. By collaboration of big tech companies alternatives have also been hindered or destroyed. Whether you agree with him or not, or agree with whether or not the tech companies intentionally shut out someone who threatened their monopoly on information, you still have the appearance of 4 giant corporations working at the same time to extinguish a politician who called out big tech for censorship. And they proved him right. A few monolithic corporations absolutely hold the power to effectively silence a political party. Wanna take bets on the next politician to take a stance against any one of them? It sure isn't going to be someone who wants to keep their office.
And no, we aren't talking about a fringe politician. We are talking about a politician who, on his 2nd run at elected office, garnered, if I recall this correctly, the 2nd largest number of presidential popular votes in history. I think it was a about 45% of the popular vote and also the majority of geographic USA.
Other countries should beware. Our country? I think it's too late now. You'd be a fool to be a politician and oppose Big Tech in any way. They can shape an election and they can silence the protesters. They can silence the internet presence of the opposition.
And this is not to agree or disagree with anyone's message. This is to point out that big tech does not have checks and balances to hinder harm that our government has. There's a reason why government is so bad at doing things. Because it's designed that way by people that didn't trust people with power.
It is a very sad day for me to see the tech community advocate censorship. Information wants to be free?

What a disgusting example of gender shaming Nidi makes here. In America men make up the majority of workers that work over 50 hours per week. In America, men are more likely to be up earlier and off to work or back later from work than women. So the bigoted statement that the poster is lazy when he suggested home cooked meals decreased with women in the work force is just that, a highly bigoted statement towards men.
Instead of gender shaming we could suggest that women pick up more slack with working hours to allow men more leisure time to make dinners. This helps with gender equity and also with the topic of the thread which is better eating habits.
There is also the inequity of men's fields of choice being both more dangerous jobs and better earning jobs, which makes it difficult to suggest that this gap can be fixed merely by women working more hours, instead they would have to start entering dangerous fields in more equal numbers and in college get degrees in more challenging fields. The government has so far done this in discrimination at the employment level for STEM jobs and business. But to ensure equity so that men are no longer addressed in such disgusting sexist ways, the government would need to rework college assistant to steer women away from lower paying fields and also ensure a drive towards labor careers for women in early education.
Or men are just more willing to take higher danger jobs, higher demanding jobs, work more hours to support families and an economy that favors a stay at home spouse will more likely result in a stay at home wife. Regardless, a stay at home spouse is more likely to help with healthy eating, regardless if it is the man or woman. But to Nidi's bigoted comment, no, it doesn't have to be a woman, just more likely to be based on current labor and earning statistics.

This is obviously a troll article just from the blurb. The article doesn't contain any news itself but does have quite a bit of propaganda. Either the author is a low mentality sucker who got played or the author is in on the con. It's embarrassing that they continually approve articles like this. The article's main source of information they quote is an extremist group whose sole purpose is to manipulate social media to bully companies to remove advertising dollars from conservative websites. Good job Slashdot in once again making the website look like it's run by a bunch of easy marks or complicit cons. Embarrassing.

Sounds like something a crack addict would do.

But the article isn't about Trump or about Joe Biden or about the Presidency. It's not even about Hunter.

Let's get this back on track. The article is about Twitter libeling the shop owner as a hacker.

1. His job was to retrieve data, as far as he states. There has been no real contention of that point aside from the fact that some allege that the laptop was just a plant and he a shill. This makes him a data retrieval "worker?" i guess. What's the best term there. It's not like he's working for seagate but I assume this is a normal request at his shop. I know I don't have a computer shop and I still have been asked to retrieve data probably 500 times in the last 20 years.
2. If he was a shill and the laptop was a plant, then he is a liar and not a hacker.
3. Abandoned property. Even if his job wasn't to access data, the uncontested claim is that the laptop was abandoned and that the terms stated abandoned equipment would belong to the shop. This is pretty normal. There are TV shows about people abandoning things in storage lockers and people bid on them. I've never seen twitter describe the buyers or the storage companies described as thieves. You can go on twitter right now and find discussions about the topic. Twitter does not consider accessing abandoned property at a business to be a crime except in this one case.
4. Twitter is a tech company and knows very well what hacker means. Regarding their own employees giving access to their own systems to outsiders twitter responds: âoeWe detected what we believe to be a coordinated social engineering attack by people who successfully targeted some of our employees with access to internal systems and tools,". They don't describe their employees as hackers. Elsewhere they do describe the attack as an attack but they don't respond to their legitimate tech workers as hackers and they describe the attack as a "social engineering attack" showing sophistication in knowledge of correct language regarding "hacking".

No, you can have your view point if subverting this information was a great big conspiracy or if presenting it is a great big conspiracy. Both sides are equally a conspiracy theory. But you can't justify this shop owner being called a hacker by Twitter. That's garbage. They knew very well he wasn't a hacker and had grasp of technology and language well enough to know the word did not fit him. He's either a computer worker that discovered data on an abandoned computer or he's a liar that presented fake data or a sucker who was fed a fake computer hoping he would eventually find the incriminating evidence and submit it to authorities. Absolutely they libeled him. Is being knowingly falsely accused of hacking a presidential nominees computer by a giant tech company worth millions of dollars? Sure? IDGAF. But I know a company worth billions isn't going to consider what it says about people if the money doesn't hurt a little.

The argument is that homework only helps students that have a traditional support structure in place. Things like educated parents, family time, a place to do work. That homework therefor only helps those that need the help the least.
The argument is to find alternatives to homework.
This is half true and half nonsense. Here's how you know it's nonsense. No school or system in the country is saying stop letting the best athletes play sports because the best athletes are the ones that had extra help at home and more time to practice and that being on the team only magnifies the divide between the athletes that had more help versus their peers. It is true but it is also nonsense. If a student has an advantage we should 100% leverage that to build excellence.
But it is also true that students that don't have a support system in place will not benefit from homework, not more of it anyway. The dark cold truth of it is, that the kid that is behind in math wouldn't be behind to begin with if he had all that help, more of the same isn't going to do any good.
I think anyone reasonable would agree that it would be completely self sabatoging to not help those that are helping themselves but that we should keep looking for other types of support for students that cannot practice work at home for whatever reason.
All of this is pointless though. Unless you are going to cheat and sabotage successful students, equal resources mean the students at the bottom will never catch up. The modern school experience doesn't really provide much of a path to take failing 5 year olds and lock them into an alternate path with work at their ability until they are ready to move up. So the kids will be behind, get pushed up, be further and further away from understanding the work their peers are doing. So the bleak take away from the article is that there is no point giving homework to kids that won't do it with parents that can't help them.

The fact that the author of the article can write hate speech towards half of America branding it as racist without having their conspiracy theory shut down, not shut down by the editor, publisher, whoever submitted the hate speech conspiracy theory article to Slashdot, and whoever let it through to main page, indicates exactly why the extreme-left media is fracturing media so badly that there had to be a separate platform for conservative ideas.
The disgusting and delusional hate-speech bigoted belief that half of America needs to be condescendingly apologized to because racist speech is censored on their platform is bizarre. Instead of curing the delusion, by showing that of course conservatives are not allowing hate speech on their platform, the disturbed author presents some scenario where the non-conservatives somehow got one over on us.
What I don't understand is why is Slashdot presenting this kind of hate speech on its platform.

There is no world where breaking up Google fosters competition. There is zero reason today why there can't be different operating systems on phones and there have been. And there still are. The answer is those operating systems either are so weak in comparison that no one wants them or they are bundled with expensive hardware. Without Google there would be no Covid-19 schooling going on, there would be no access to good $100 smart phones for the non-wealthy. There are problems with Google today but the idea that splitting it up is going to flood the marketspace with competition is fantasy. And that fantasy requires denying the fact that there have been several competitors to Google that have not failed due to anti-trust but rather being an inferior product.

I can't find any evidence of Biden's bus being attack. Could you list sources for Biden's bus being "literally attacked" by Trump supporters?

I saw it. It was clearly not meant to be arousing. The girls were annoying and stupid. They weren't sexy, they were copying adults without being mature enough to do so. And it showed the horrible cost of a religious girl trying to fit in by copying the "mean girls" that were copying skanky "dancers".
Now if Netflix marketed it as something sexy that is a different matter. But the movie itself is not sexy at all. It does not do what it purports to be against.

The government you trust today might be totally different in 10 years and the laws they enforce you might not readily agree with. Imagine those insurgents get into power in your state. Do you want them sending warrants to Google asking who searched for dirt on Antifa? Or better yet, you travel to Portland. Do you want the people in charge of Portland right now to have the power to fish your Google searches as you drive through town?

The biggest problem with your statement is that it isn't backed up by statements or by actions. Can you cite sources documenting that Trump wants all people with higher amounts of melanin locked up or that he wants to lock up all people of a specific religion? I welcome you to prove me wrong with facts and citation.

Omitting the math error reported by others, the other problem here is the assumption that the zero-44 demographic is equivalent in both population and in infection numbers. The 3% doesn't mean anything without context. I suspect the context would be that the difference in the percentage of that age group as part of the population and also their infection rate makes that 3% look even less dangerous than the 30x less deadly already does.

"And for those who are going to say we've progressed where this delay isn't necessary, we're still using the same system of voting wherein the person who receives the most votes may not win. How about we progress beyond that?"

That's a horrible idea. Our founders were incredibly smart in baking in all kinds of protections into the system. The electoral college preserves the union. Without that it's just a contest to get the most people into a state so that your state can control the election. And at that point there's no reason for farming states to have an interest in being part of the union. Straight votes count in state and local elections and that's probably a good thing. Representative systems allow minority (not necessarily race) to have some skin in the game and have some power in government. And that is very much a good thing.

Of course we do have incredible levels of control and most of the control means choosing not to get something for "free" because if they aren't selling you a product then you are the product. Of course most apps will not be available for free unless free means free of cash and you only pay with your data. Go see how many free news webpages you get to see with your adblocker enabled.

Watchmen the comic was a what-if cable car experiment that asked you to suspend disbelief about super powers so that you could examine human nature related to that predicament.

Watchmen the series was bad because it predicated itself not on ignoring a weird situation to see human behavior but instead predicated itself on unrealistic human behavior to examine what weird situation would happen. Stories have to have realistic motivation. It should be the easiest thing to write because we are all humans who want things.