![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f32bace3-fd47-420a-ae4f-77bac70578d8.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
While I appreciate his valor at the battle of Gettysburg, I don’t think it’s relevant.
I mod a worryingly growing list of communities. Ask away if you have any questions or issues with any of the communities.
I also run the hobby and nerd interest website scratch-that.org.
While I appreciate his valor at the battle of Gettysburg, I don’t think it’s relevant.
Almost all of the soldiers in the Andrews raid were awarded Medals Of Honor in the 1860s. Shadrack and Wilson were captured and executed by the Confederacy, and didn’t get medals. This long post humous award is in line with what they seemingly should have earned by being part of the raid. (The medals were authorized for both of them in 2008, so the extended delay in actually presenting them is something to look into.)
This is a great historical story. The raid was conceived by a civilian who wanted to steal a train behind confederate lines and then ride it while destroying the tracks behind in order to disrupt confederate logistics. The raid turned into a chase as the conductor of the stolen train chased the raiders on a series of handcarts and trains, while the raiders attempted to disrupt telegraph wires and tracks. Eventually the raiders had to abandon their stolen train and were captured, with some escaping, some being executed, and some being held as POWs. I actually made a post about the man who conceived of the raid a while back in the American Civil War community here.
The other soldiers (except for one who still doesn’t have an MOH) in the raid were awarded the newly created MOH during the war. These two soldiers were retroactively awarded the MOH by Congress in 2008, so I am not sure why it took so long for the award to be presented.
That’s what I thought you meant, I was just trying to confirm, as I sometimes feel a step behind in tech conversions.
It is annoying not to have a button on the UI, but once you learn the hotkey this becomes a non-issue unless I’m missing something? I suppose this is an issue, but for a piece of free software like this it sort of feels like making a mountain out of a molehill.
He can’t keep getting away with it.
Relying on the goodwill of republicans to make an exception seems like a poor strategy. This is an unforced error that could have been avoided.
Did the DNC just forget this when scheduling their convention?
And this is why I’m asking, because I know little about UK law, and am trying to figure out how this is going to move forward. She can sue, now I wonder about the theory that leads to a win. Protected categories is a start, but it feels vague, and I’m curious what the precise angle and evidence brought in will be.
I am waiting to follow the case for updates, because while I hope that the outcome pushes back on AI system like this, I am skeptical of current laws to perceive what is happening as protected class discrimination. I presume in the UK the burden for proving fault in the AI lays on the plaintiff, which is at the heart of if the reason is legitimate in the eyes of the law.
If the AI is flagging faces and immediately alerting employees, it is likely also going to throw up a flag for abnormal interference like that. Or if it doesn’t do it now, it is a feature that could be added if such hats become a common enough.
A tangent to explore. I though am curious how the current case under the current laws is expecting to go forward.
I presume at that point the store would just have security walk out the person wearing the hat.
This is a bad situation for her. I am genuinely curious under what standing she is suing. Thinking it through, this seems like a situation where the laws might not have caught up to what is happening. I hope she gets some changes out of this, but I am really curious on the legal mechanics of how that might happen.
People on the internet talk a big game, but ultimately are hopelessly addicted to their routines.
Looks like the standard has already been re-affirmed in other cases as incitement (knowing and intentional words to imminently cause lawless action) in order for a lawsuit to succeed.
The Louisiana Supreme Court did find that first responders (police, fire,EMT, etc) are indeed allowed to sue. There was some question of if they were disqualified from suing under the theory that getting attacked in a riot is just a job hazard for them. Vox might have taken offense to that for some reason.
This is all civil too, so no jail time or charges, just a legal fight about standards for culpability for the purposes of a civil case.
Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.