Lurking Class
@tokyosexgreg.bsky.social
That really doesn't matter concerning the number of natural fires that occurred before development.
Simply put, we now extinguish fires that would have cleared brush prior to the mass development of the west.
Simply put, we now extinguish fires that would have cleared brush prior to the mass development of the west.
January 18, 2025 at 1:50 AM
That really doesn't matter concerning the number of natural fires that occurred before development.
Simply put, we now extinguish fires that would have cleared brush prior to the mass development of the west.
Simply put, we now extinguish fires that would have cleared brush prior to the mass development of the west.
Wildfires have always been a part of the California environment. They were more frequent before land development and would burn away the smaller brush, leaving the larger growth.
January 18, 2025 at 1:40 AM
Wildfires have always been a part of the California environment. They were more frequent before land development and would burn away the smaller brush, leaving the larger growth.
Weren't they mad too many immigrants were coming?
January 17, 2025 at 10:47 PM
Weren't they mad too many immigrants were coming?
Ok, let me slow down here.
You're saying the Supreme Court will do whatever Trump says.
I'm telling you the SC literally just did the opposite of what Trump asked them to do.
You're saying the Supreme Court will do whatever Trump says.
I'm telling you the SC literally just did the opposite of what Trump asked them to do.
January 17, 2025 at 7:27 PM
Ok, let me slow down here.
You're saying the Supreme Court will do whatever Trump says.
I'm telling you the SC literally just did the opposite of what Trump asked them to do.
You're saying the Supreme Court will do whatever Trump says.
I'm telling you the SC literally just did the opposite of what Trump asked them to do.
What does this have to do with the Supreme Court not listening to Trump?
I know he's not consistent.
I know he's not consistent.
January 17, 2025 at 6:59 PM
What does this have to do with the Supreme Court not listening to Trump?
I know he's not consistent.
I know he's not consistent.
He literally just asked them not to make this ruling, and they did.
January 17, 2025 at 6:20 PM
He literally just asked them not to make this ruling, and they did.
No more than Bluesky.
January 17, 2025 at 5:04 PM
No more than Bluesky.
It was a unanimous decision by the supreme court and democrats want Biden to stop the Tik Tok ban
www.reuters.com/technology/s...
www.reuters.com/technology/s...
Senate Democrats ramp up pressure on Biden to delay TikTok ban
A growing number of lawmakers are urging President Joe Biden to grant a reprieve to prevent TikTok from going dark in the United States as soon as Sunday, warning millions of creators and businesses could be hurt.
www.reuters.com
January 17, 2025 at 4:55 PM
It was a unanimous decision by the supreme court and democrats want Biden to stop the Tik Tok ban
www.reuters.com/technology/s...
www.reuters.com/technology/s...
Sorry, I require evidence to believe things
January 17, 2025 at 4:38 PM
Sorry, I require evidence to believe things
Right....so Trump did keep documents illegally to impress Kid Rock, but not the thing you said, which there is no proof of.
January 17, 2025 at 4:37 PM
Right....so Trump did keep documents illegally to impress Kid Rock, but not the thing you said, which there is no proof of.
The reality is there's no proof of what you're saying.
January 17, 2025 at 4:33 PM
The reality is there's no proof of what you're saying.
Do you mean the documents you just made up?
January 17, 2025 at 4:30 PM
Do you mean the documents you just made up?
Selling information to China is different from sharing info in the same way they do with other companies.
January 17, 2025 at 4:29 PM
Selling information to China is different from sharing info in the same way they do with other companies.
You're mad I corrected your misinformation.
January 17, 2025 at 4:22 PM
You're mad I corrected your misinformation.
You're an idiot.
January 17, 2025 at 4:18 PM
You're an idiot.
Why would Fox be banned?
January 17, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Why would Fox be banned?
It was a unanimous decision and the correct interpretation.
January 17, 2025 at 4:05 PM
It was a unanimous decision and the correct interpretation.
You said they sold data to China.
January 17, 2025 at 3:43 PM
You said they sold data to China.
You want to prove that?
January 17, 2025 at 3:40 PM
You want to prove that?
Scared of Canada?
January 17, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Scared of Canada?
It's owned by ByteDance, and China has access to all the info gathered.
January 17, 2025 at 3:38 PM
It's owned by ByteDance, and China has access to all the info gathered.
I didn't say he was consistent.
January 17, 2025 at 3:36 PM
I didn't say he was consistent.