I was recently hit with a lock on my instagram account, and am now requested to record a short selfie video to unlock it.
As I live in the EU, I was wondering if there's any way I can force Instagram to unlock my account on the basis of our GDPR laws, without the need for the video.Has anyone tried this?If so, how did it go?
Secondarily, as someone who has sent selfies and videos to friends on facebook before, I think it's fair to assume that the company already has data on how I look like etc.Is it worth it to stress over a small video when I have already given them all of this other data?
Quick question, does anyone know when these daily challenges come up? Last one was I think a month ago, and I’m not sure if these are a monthly thing, or just something that happens randomly.
TLDR: Expressions challenge, wackyness prefered :³
Well friends, for the low price of 7.50 you can add facial stubble, which satisfies the challenge! 7.50 to remove if it's not your style, but still a bargain!
I know previously we could change teeth but the last time I tried that it didn't work. Happy to see there is still an option that doesn't cost me 1 GB to earn .1 haha.
https://preview.redd.it/9rnczaebt0971.jpg?width=2448&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=81bebe761da3720375b9ea51d8cedab83ebc5e08
https://preview.redd.it/njvmz7ebt0971.jpg?width=2365&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6fccd4287373d34c204d071ccfdd51d75674dd4a
Just came up with this today, I call it “Full Beard Challenge” not sure if it’s been posted or even thought of before.
The goal is 60 days without relapsing and see how far you can go, and at the end of the challenge (depending on if you can grow facial hair) see who has the fullest facial hair.
What do you guys think? I’m for sure doing this.
EDIT: Also the main reason for this is because I’ve come across studies and articles saying that the longer you go without relapsing you will in turn grow a fuller beard and your testosterone will jump through the roof
Y'all asked.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ics.12328
"There are many issues that make shaving a challenge."
There are many issues that eliminating shaving requirements would solve for nearly 100% of the male population of the Force in an instant. There are a few issues eliminating shaving would introduce to a fraction of the Force on occasion.
Hi everyone! So I’ve never noticed this problem before the last couple of months, but when I go on social media or watch tv I’ve been struggling a bit to differentiate between different people of the same race/ with similar features. It has been happening for basically every race outside my own (I am Black) but it’s very unintentional. I’ve never experienced it before the pandemic and it has not escalated to accidentally calling someone the wrong name but if anyone has experienced this how did you get through it? Thanks !
Someone will most likely file a case to the Supreme Court to question this law once it becomes effective.
So is the Anti-Terrorism Bill constitutional (if it becomes law as it is)?
This can be answered by scrutinizing the bill through strict scrutiny and a facial challenge. Note that these are not answers but just points to ponder coming from a law student.
Strict Scrutiny:
First, we need to determine which level of scrutiny under the due process clause is applicable. Governmental acts such as laws or orders of the executive can be made void under the due process clause which states that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This bill (if passed into law as it is) deserves strict scrutiny as it may violate the fundamental rights of liberty and freedom of expression. According to jurisprudence, strict scrutiny applies when what is at stake are fundamental freedoms.
Levels of scrutiny under the due process clause
Compelling state interest and least restrictive means:
Strict scrutiny requires that there be a compelling state interest and that the least restrictive means is being used to achieve that interest. The interest according to the bill is "the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people." Compelling enough right? Though we can argue that there are no rampant acts or threats of terrorist attacks at this time. Anyway, I bet the SC will declare the interest as compelling.
If we agree that this interest is indeed compelling, the question now is if the least restrictive means is being used.
We can argue the the least restrictive means are not being used because of section 29 entitled Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest :
https://preview.redd.it/nbp0ghj9dg251.png?width=541&format=png&auto=webp&s=8ea2bccf258b7d82eac735f141c82a67ab30eb68
https://preview.redd.it/mgk0h6kadg251.png?width=531&format=png&auto=webp&s=0e6691bf4e260e122f3f99e78aceaa847d487c10
This means that the person arrested without a warrant can be detained for 14(!) days and can be extended for another 10(!) days which is far too long for someone suspected(emphasis on suspected) of being a terrorist. Even warrantless arrests during suspension of writ of habeas corpus require a max 3 days.
We can also argue that the least restrictive means are n
... keep reading on reddit ➡
