It’s pretty easy to infer what they meant based on context. Provided you’re trying to understand what they mean and not divorcing all intent from the words.
I was thinking making it illegal to require an address and use email for communication. Public libraries usually have free WiFi. They can check their emails there. If they do not have their own devices, they can use a public computer.
Laws against not having an address? That just (further) criminalizes poverty.
I think they’re saying laws against discrimination for not having an address.
Now that makes a lot more sense than the way they worded it.
Unfortunately not gonna happen under this Reich.
No, reread what they said. Laws against employers requiring an address. Don’t be so quick to assume.
Even reading what they wrote, the context and intent were there, but the way it was written doesn’t align with their intent.
It’s pretty easy to infer what they meant based on context. Provided you’re trying to understand what they mean and not divorcing all intent from the words.
But if I can’t get upset at things someone clearly didn’t mean, why bother going online at all?
Not to brag, but I can get angry without even reading comments these days.
“It” means the huge hurdle. It could have been better, for sure, but it’s fine.
I believe it’s the other way around: laws against the discrimination of people who do not have an address.
I would say: make a law forcing governments to provide a free administrative address on demand where you can get your mail.
I was thinking making it illegal to require an address and use email for communication. Public libraries usually have free WiFi. They can check their emails there. If they do not have their own devices, they can use a public computer.
Why would a physical address be required at all?
No, you see it’s illegal for anyone to sleep under a bridge, not just the poors.
Sadly there are some people who believe that.