Historically less so. Even back in the 80s lots of girls i knew and thought of as tom boys. Where forced to dress and act girlie by there parents. Further back you go more limits there were.
HumanPenguin
joined 10 months ago
Lot of very specific detail their. Come on share the story.
Assuming it was a peacefull succession. Negotiations etc. Really not to difficult to resolve.
Of course the reality is no one in power in Texas really wants to go independent. They want to use the threat to try and controll the federal government. And or They are just using there supporters to gain a foot hold on some power.
Worth noting the US government needs indevidual US citize s to fight for that United States.
The % of citizens who feel the constitution is likely due for some change. While not near the 66% in 50 states needed to change it, is likely enough to seriously effect the resources forcing other to follow it.
Even congress and the senate are far from 100% in agreement. Or ever likely to be on such things. The further from the head of the snake you go. The more likely the US military is to question orders to attack domestic targets.
A d lets face it. Any attempt by the military to force orders in a situation like that, where the enemy is considered to be a part of your own team by a significant % of the people pulling tigers and dropping the actual bombs. Will harm rather then rebuild that unity.
Also worth noting of that -1600. A fair % have family friends and even lovers not living in texas. In 2024 with easy transport etc and cheap communication. It really is impossible for any state to relly on its own current resources. Things would shuffle hugely in the lead up and post the first attacks. Likely the 1600 would grow from good old boys joining. But experience and command structure would be a mess for a while.
Of course US forces would see the same but less so. Some would have friends and relatives in texas. Many would bulk at the domestic part of foreign and domestic.
Professionals.s following orders can only go so far as far as preventing personal politics.
Even in the civil war many refused allegence to the side they were expected to fight for. With Internet and more communication of the 2000s. Allegiances will be less not more founded.
No fan of apple. Don't own a single product.
But my guess they are planning to argue thay this part of the rule.
"at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper."
Mean they cannot allow free side loading when many apps on their store have to pay to be available. Also as they have rules limiting the apps allowed via their store front. Allowing free side loading without checking the activities of the app. Would also be allowing conditions different from their store.
My guess is they want to argue that the law is badly formed and cannot be followed while providing a safe enviroment within your own services.
He was more mad at the app developers for not putting effort into mzking the android port appropriate for android. And the fact that they don't bother providing common needed functions for android apps. Like configurable settings.
Im not an expert on either as I tend to be a linux pc developer.
But user accounts is the way linux handles a program having its own space. Andriod has def made a choice from the begging not to have, and now to limit. The multi user part of linux. Assigning a user and group account to programs. Works great as a way of limiting programs ability to interfere with files of other programs without su access to allow the approval of only assess to those approved.
So I agree android makes a bad choice to ignore any extra protection.