In the Brazilian voting machine this is often done. You type the numbers and it loads the candidate info in the screen. Once you click [Confirm] the screen gets blank with the message of success. Therefore the only way to take a picture is before the vote is actually processed. You have a [Reset] button to re-enter the numbers.
I am surprised at how many cynical people think that asking for Trump to be removed from Twitter has anything to do with censorship or violation of first amendment rights.
Twitter is a private business and its content is controlled by the company itself. If Twitter comes to the point when they would delete Trump's account, that would be the equivalent of kicking him out of your house. It is your house, your rules.
Right wingers tend to conveniently bend the borderline between public and private whenever it benefits them.
Spot on. The first amendment prohibits government from limiting speech. It does not require private parties to allow arbitrary speech, let alone to broadcast it. One could argue that social media should be regulated as public utilities, subject to rules (but still not first amendment) about what speech must or must not be allowed. I happen to disagree, but even if I agreed it hasn't happened yet and even if it happened it would still be commerce clause rather than first amendment.
> Right wingers tend to conveniently bend the borderline between public and private whenever it benefits them.
So much this. Conservatives and libertarians constantly complain about environmental or financial regulation, but when it comes to "too big to fail" bailouts or stealing taxpayer money to provide free infrastructure (of all kinds) for big business they're mostly silent. Sure, there are always a few who speak up, but "not all libertarians" in economics is a lot like "not all men" in gender relations. It's an excuse, a mere fig leaf of concern that doesn't really conceal a generally neo-feudalist agenda.
P.S. I see some of the snowflakes are taking advantage of the "censorship" options here on HN to downvote, thus essentially proving my point.
I agree that's not a good implication to make. The question was about understanding why the editorial comment would be made at all at the time, what the motivation for it was, and why the supposed reasoning for using the pronoun was the user being in a particular environment and time instead of the simpler explanation of pronoun tradition. A plausible candidate would be the ideological battles for the correct usage of pronouns that I've seen in my own adulthood, which isn't to say all ideological issues are bad for being ideological.
Yes, in Portuguese (my native language) it is the same.
For instance, "amigos" means "friends" with at least one male (the example of 50 women in a room and 1 man). "amigas" would be "friends" with only women/females.
There is in Brazilian Portuguese (probably in other pt speaking countries as well) a movement of people pushing for the usage of letter-tokens to turn gender-specific words into gender-neutral. In this case, they would use "amigxs" or "amig@s".
