Yes, there are red flags there IMHO.

You know, I've seen similar behaviours so many times from people that they tell you how many problems they have and they kind of put the burden on you to deal with their problems. I don't mean you cannot be supportive of them if they really have problems they are trying to fix, but you shouldn't be dealing with someone else's problems if they don't want to do anything about them themselves.

I usually listen to them, tell them that I understand they are going through hard times and that I understand how tough that is being for them and all that supportive stuff... and then I tell them to go to therapy.

We cannot be someone else's therapists. Unless, you know, we are actual therapists. And even in that case, they would have to go through one of our formal therapies. I don't think even therapists get into relationships with someone just to fix them.

Some people will take the advice and consider getting help while others will not even consider it because they just want to take you hostage of their emotions. It's not worth putting any much more effort into someone who is apparently crying for help but doesn't really want to make any change and just wants to manipulate you instead.

And punching other people? Yeah, I don't care how "honourable" his reasons were, that's also a red flag.

Forty years as a Spaniard and I just learnt now tourists come here to buy espadrilles, which is even a word I just learnt from this map.

Yeah, I also checked the date first and I think that makes it worse because that's a statement he made when he was still the Prime Minister.

It works for me, so the issue must be on your side (or they fixed the link)

No, they didn't. Their answer was wrong.

Oh, that's helpful and sheds some light, thanks.
Still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, though! But it is what it is.

OK, so all the explanations I saw were vague because the law itself was vague. That looks quite like a loophole to have passed!

It seems you are confusing strictly necessary cookies with legitimate interest cookies, which are different things: https://kbin.social/m/explainlikeimfive@lemmy.world/t/466192/-/comment/2427882

It would help to clarify in the post that you’re interested in the legal aspects for the EU under the GDPR.

I had added the #GDPR tag to the question and, as far as I know, GDPR is the only regulation that requires a cookie consent banner and mentions legitimate interest cookies, but I may be wrong on that as I don't know all the regulations around the world 😃 (and California tends to follow EU's stances on these matters, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were baking something similar to the GDPR if they don't have it yet).

But yeah, you are right, people from many different places around the world could be reading the question, so I must have been clear that this is specific to some local regulation. I edited the post.

That doesn't answer the question, does it?

That's a functional (or "strictly necessary") cookie and those are the ones you cannot reject.
Legitimate-interest cookies are a different thing and you can indeed reject them, but they are on by default.

I know what a cookie is.
I was asking what are legitimate-interest cookies and what makes them different so they don't need explicit consent under GDPR.

Another Spaniard here, for the record.

I wouldn't say it's like Palestine, there are relevant differences between both cases. The basis of the Palestinian conflict and the reason why two states were created were mostly religious and ethnic. I don't think any of that plays a significant role in the Saharan case and it's all down to Moroccan expansionism and access to oil reserves in the Saharan sea.
In the Palestinian case, it was a former British colony that was being decolonized and tensions between two communities living in that territory led to the current situation. I'm not going into the details because it would be too long, you can just go to Wikipedia.
In the Saharan case, it was a Spanish former colony which, in the process of being decolonized, was invaded by a neighbouring country for political and economic reasons.

You are basically saying Western Sahara ended up in this situation because Spain abandoned it unattending the UN's mandate to decolonize it.
Spain was indeed attending the UN's mandate to decolonize it as it did with Equatorial Guinea a few years before, which is an independent country nowadays. But both Mauritania and Morocco had aspirations on Western Sahara and wouldn't accept an independent Sahara, so taking advantage of one moment of political weakness in Spain with the dictator retired to die, Morocco invaded Western Sahara and mainland Spain was more concerned about their internal issues and was not in the position to defend the Sahara against Moroccan invasion.

Mauritania eventually gave up on their aspirations on Sahara and that's how we ended up in the current situation with a Morocco-occupied Sahara with a self-proclaimed government that fights back against the occupation with very little support (other than Algeria) because Morocco has much stronger diplomatic ties.

The current situation, de jure, is that Western Sahara is a Spanish former colony in the process of being decolonized.
But de facto, it's a territory governed by Morocco and disputed with the Polisario Front, which was already fighting against Spanish occupation before Moroccan one and has declared an independent Republic which has very little recognition.
De jure, Spain would be continuing the decolonization process, but that's not realistic when the territory has been occupied by Morocco for half a century.

It's true, however, that this is not an issue that raises a lot of interest currently in Spain for anything else than playing internal politics.
Also, Morocco and Spain have a lot of common interests so Spain is very careful to not upset Morocco with this topic. On the other hand, Algeria is the biggest supporter of the Polisarian cause and another Spanish strategic ally and probably the reason why Spain hasn't fully abandoned yet the Saharan cause. So Spain usually tries to play a low profile on this trying to balance their position between not upsetting Morocco and not upsetting Algeria.

For more details, Wikipedia is still your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_March

And the former Spanish king being a CIA agent? Yeah, I don't think it's even worth to add any comment to that.

And, of course, when I say "Spain", "Morocco", "Algeria", etc., I am referring to the regime that ruled the country at that moment.
I'm not trying to imply that every Moroccan or Algerian is responsible for what their rulers do the same way that a lot of Spaniards were not Franco supporters by that time.

LGBTQ+ and labour laws are very different across countries, so it's very difficult to talk generally about how this works without being specific to some country.

I will talk about Spain because there's where I am from and where I worked most of the time.
You generally just cannot fire someone for arbitrary reasons before their contract comes to an end. You really have to justify why you need to fire that person, like having several poor performance reviews against them. Otherwise, you may risk having your firing judged as "unjustified" and having to pay that person a big compensation or even the firing being judged as void and having to readmit them to the position you fired them from.
No matter whether they are cis, gay, straight, man, woman, POC or whatever, you just cannot fire someone without a valid reason unless their contract has come to an end and you don't renew it, that's basically it.

So could someone argue that your sexual orientation or gender identity is a valid reason to fire you because being gay doesn't fit within their company culture or having trans people may cause them an image problem?

No, article 4.2.c of the Worker's Statute says you cannot be discrimanted for employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, among other criteria like ethnicity, age, union membership, etc.
So you couldn't be fired for being either gay or straight, man or woman, cis or trans, etc. Nothing of that is a valid reason to be fired.

I created my account in Status.net (now GNU Social) around 2009 and later it was switched to pump.io: https://identi.ca/chuso
And Diaspora* in 2010: https://joindiaspora.com/people/4d0aa88b2c174330380001db
Like others, with not a lot success with those early projects until I joined Mastodon in 2017: @chuso

Github Copilot.

I had the opposite argument with one Indian guy when I was living in the UK.
He was saying what people speak in countries like Mexico, Argentina, etc. cannot be called Spanish because they are not from Spain and instead they speak Mexican, Argentinian...
I told him what they speak in those countries is still Spanish the same way that what they speak in the US is English even when they are not in England. He replied that what they speak in America is not English either but American instead.
Then I realized how stubborn he was in his wrongness and just gave up.

I like to see it that way, as an easy way to refer to everyone who doesn't fit within the cishet norm.
As others have mentioned, this used to be a derogatory term, so some people may still feel uncomfortable with it, but it has been reclaimed since then and I think nowadays we have long past the point where most people still see it as a derogatory word.
Also, it seems it annoys Graham Linehan, which is always a bonus: https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1681657946529202182

I have no idea how it works under the hood, but I guess there is some caching given how fast results are retrieved.

This appears to be related to kiwi farms?

It was originally developed by Kiwi Farms when they were running their own Mastodon instance.
They built this tool because they were being massively defederated (for obvious reasons) but eventually gave up and closed their Mastodon instance.
Since then, other instances apparently not related to Kiwi Farms (but usually still that kind of "free speech" ones) have reinstantiated the service.

It also has a slur immediately on the page you linked

Oh, yes, I haven't seen that.

fedi-block-api already existed and works with any fediverse instance, not only Lemmy.