Yes, exactly. I don’t think there is anyone in the world who knows me and believes that I, specifically, deserve to be killed. I think almost every person feels the same way. The rare exception being someone who has intentionally profoundly harmed or killed people.
Actually, banks are a heavily regulated industry and they have to comply with strict non-discrimination requirements including making all reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.
If you know someone who uses a screen reader and is therefore unable to use HSBC’s app, encourage them to file a complaint with the appropriate regulator (in the US, try https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ ).
Banks are very attentive about listening to their regulators.
(Of course, it’s possible that what HSBC did still works with commonly used screen readers for the blind because they actually thought of this.)
The answer is different in different states. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/counting-absentee-ballots-after-a-voter-dies
Great question – would someone ask that of my boss please? 😉
How concerned should I be?
What are the unspecified policies the developer claims that the company has failed to uphold? Who is this particular developer, and how much should I trust them? (I don’t follow nginx development at all.)
I celebrate the fact that open source licenses exist specifically to allow people to make a fork like this when they have disagreements! But I don’t know enough about this particular case to decide how it should affect my own plans.
Under the government’s theory, in this case, I cannot understand how the Google App Store is a monopoly, but the Apple App Store is not. Can anyone explain that to me?
A swappable battery. I could buy a few batteries and never be out of power. I could replace the battery on an older phone without pretty much having to replace the phone itself.
I have two arguments to defend jury nullification. First of all, in our system “jury nullification” is NOT a policy. It is the name for the inevitable fact to that members of a jury can decide to vote “innocent” without being subject to some kind of interrogation.
My second argument is this: I think jury nullification is actually a good policy, because the only thing it produces are delays unless fully 12 out of 12 randomly selected citizens think this application of the law is completely unfair. If the citizenry believes a law is unfair with that much unanimity it probably IS unfair.