data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/89020/8902097465e673ce0111e82d89a5c97b4fdf721e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd89d/fd89d60f281bc5b809b177d43f1fc4e389d2c82a" alt=""
Voyager is my go to. But it doesn’t load Redgifs for me. Which isn’t a deal breaker as I do most of my browsing at work, but there are times when no one’s looking so it’d be nice to have.
Voyager is my go to. But it doesn’t load Redgifs for me. Which isn’t a deal breaker as I do most of my browsing at work, but there are times when no one’s looking so it’d be nice to have.
Thanks. That’s helpful. And because I had to know:
Among unfathomable “Diseases and Casualties,” Planet (or plannet) was “likely a shorthand for “planet-struck [because] Many medical practitioners believed the planets influenced health and sanity.” The label applied to any sudden illness or death, such as a heart attack or aneurysm, according to “15 Historic Diseases that Competed with Bubonic Plague.”
I’m feel less dumb now. Thank you new friend.
Since I can’t read lawyer speak very well, can someone sum up why it was considered a first amendment failing?
It can understand why forcing sites to display the warning would be a violation, but the basic wording of “reasonable age verification method” doesn’t seem to be a first amendment violation to my understanding.
Note: I am not disagreeing with this outcome, I just don’t understand how it’s specifically a first amendment violation.
Also please use small words, as I am dumb.
Not an expert but I believe synthetol was a TNG invention. TOS folks were still drinking the good stuff.