T-Mobile supports these bands:

• 5G: n2/41/71/258/260/261

• 5G,ER: n25

• 4GLTE: B4/5/12/71

• 4GLTE,ER: B25/66

• 2G,GSM: B2

Fairphone 5 supports these bands:

• 5G: n1/2/3/5/7/8/20/28/38/41/48/71/77/78

• 5G,ER: n66

• 4GLTE: B1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/20/28/32/38/40/41/42/48/71

• 4GLTE,ER: B66

It looks like the Fairphone 5 covers T-Mobile’s 5G Frequency Band 1 frequencies (bold), but Frequency Band 2 is not covered (italic).

Regarding 4G, the Fairphone 5 covers all LTE networks (bold) except for extended range band B25 (italics).

it doesn’t support US bands for TMobile

It covers some, but not all.

another embarrassing false narrative by the Dems.

Rittenhouse got due process, as much as I and many others regret the jury’s verdict.

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia got no due process, so no judge nor jury got to cast a verdict on the Trump Administration’s claims. Instead, Trump acted as judge, jury, and executioner by sending Garcia to El Salvador when we knew he obtained a withholding of removal specifically for that country in 2019.

Even if the narratives were false, in Garcia’s case, Trump is removing your rights. That alone should be enough to pay attention and disapprove of Trump’s actions.

he was MS13

He was not. He immigrated to the US without proper documentation in 2011 at the age of 16 to escape gangs in El Salvador. Why would you try to escape gangs if you were part of one?

a duel citizen

He was not a dual citizen. Garcia has citizenship in El Salvador, but received a withholding of removal status in the US, an alternative to asylum. He was a legal resident of the US, and a legal citizen of El Salvador.

he was not MS13

This is true.

that doesn’t disprove he was MS13

No evidence was presented in immigration court that Garcia was part of MS-13. Instead, hearsay from a police officer (who later was found to supply confidential information to an escort, breaking his oath as a cop) and a anonymous informant (who said Garcia was in a NYC MS-13 gang, when Garcia lived in Maryland, not NYC) were deemed good enough for the immigration court. Neither the police officer nor informant were allowed to be cross-examined at the time, so we have no idea if these are lies or not. The judge didn’t allow it.

it is on the judge to show sufficient evidence for their ruling.

Do you mean it is on the lawyers accusing Garcia to show sufficient evidence? The judge doesn’t show evidence in a trial… They rule on the evidence…

does call into question the rest of his judgement about him being MS13

As it should. The entire thing was a sham.

no person would apply only to US citizens?

This sentence does not make any sense.

Kilmar being a duel citizen

Again, Garcia was not a dual citizen. He was a legal resident of the US as afforded by a withholding of removal verdict, and a legal citizen of El Salvador.

Please for the love of Truth educate yourself before speaking nonsense on the internet. You literally have Chrome or Firefox at your fingertips.

Do nothing, win!

I agree. Maybe immigrating Europe or emigrating the US, but that does seem odd.

Good point

This is already common usage and I don’t see the need for any prefixes to the word.

As we’ve already seen in this thread, sometimes prefixes are needed to help establish the arrow of causation when people do migrate. Did they come to or leave from this or that country? Etc.

not the current english word.

Good thing language can change over time :)

Another reason to go vegan:

Your butter won’t have shit in it!

people were immigrating from Europe

The linguistically correct term her would be emigrating from Europe.

to the US

This is immigrating.

emigrating to Europe

This is immigration.

from the US

The word you’re looking for is emigration.

emigrating from Europe

You’re correct here.

to the US

Once again, immigration.

immigrating to Europe

This is the linguistically correct use of the term.

from the US

Proper word would be emigrating.

Easiest solution is to say migrating

Migration by itself doesn’t indicate whether you’re referring to domestic-only movement, where people migrate inside of a country, or domestic-to-foreign where they cross a border, or foreign-to-foreign movement.

It all depends on the boundary you set.

If your chosen boundary is Europe, people moving to Europe are immigrating there, and people moving from Europe are emigrating there.

If your chosen boundary is the US, immigration is moving to the US while emigration is moving from the US.

Since migration isn’t specific and can refer to any of the above cases, I prefer transmigration since “trans-” refers to “across” which I often interpret as “out from and in to”.

We don’t need to give up on prepositions in order to have more accurate language.

In my view, “migrate” according to Etymonline originates from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root *mei which means “to change, go, move”.

I don’t believe this term refers to moving in or out of something, or any other preposition.

As we’ve been discussing in this post, immigrate and emigrate represent inverses of each other. It makes sense to look for logical ways to combine those.

I think the best prefix for this would be trans- for, according to Etymonline, this means “across, beyond, through, on the other side of; go beyond”. Specifically, I would refer to trans- as meaning “out from and in to”, which gives us the word “transmigrate”. Etymonline has a dictionary entry for “transmigration”.

It looks like Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and American Heritage dictionaries support “transmigrate” as an entry.

According to Etymonline,

Immigrate = in- “into, in, on, upon” from PIE root *en + migrare “to move” from PIE root *mei

Emigrate = assimilated form of ex- “out” from PIE root *eghs + migrare “to move” from PIE root *mei

So I guess to correct usage would be:

Immigrating to Europe/US

Emigrating from US/Europe

Even if he had gone all in on manufacturing, it’s not like a supply network of industrial goods can be built in a day. Hell, it’s hard to build that in a 4-year term. Trump is virtue signalling while at the same time jeopardizing any chance America had of reshoring.

It’s honestly infuriating me how big projects needed to improve our infrastructure take years and years to complete, when from one administration to the next, those same projects can be cancelled.

It takes multiple presidencies to build something good, and it takes one to tear it all down.

I see now the benefits of China’s 5 year plans with how well organized they can control their economy.

Do you know the origins of that meme?

I thought I had already explained my idea of its origination, but according to Know Your Meme, the “soy” reference started around 2017 when information was hitting the mainstream about how soy contains phytoestrogens (isoflavones) [likely due to the rise in veganism at the time and people pushing for soy-based milk alternatives to cow milk and protein alternatives to meat] and people started to speculate (ignorantly) that consuming more soy makes people more feminine (but particularly less masculine). This may be true, but current it’s plausible due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

Know Your Meme then go on to explain how the term “soy” gets ascribed to a meme, “Soyjack”, and how his effeminate male persona gets compared to the ultimate masculine male persona “Chad”.

I take this meme to mostly refer to how some people in the world are changing their worldviews and behaviors to disform with the traditional patriarchy and order. People are upgrading their morality, whether that means abstaining or advocating for not consuming animals for food, or championing equity and minority rights like women’s, or touting the reality of the climate crisis and how we need to abandon fossil fuels in favor of clean energy.

This is in comparison to an older, narrower point of view that aims to regress worldviews and behaviors to a time when humanity dominated all other species on Earth (since we’re obviously better), neither women nor minorities had societal or individual powers or rights, or coal, natural gas, and oil are the best forms of energy because of how much they’ve contributed to humanity’s advancement.

People who subscribe to a worldview like the latter routinely would call people with the former worldview “soy”.

Are you sure you’re okay with repeating it yourself, even if it’s just meant as a joke?

I am fine using that term myself only towards regressives that abandon their worldviews or fail to practice their beliefs out of cowardice or a lack of conviction specifically because those people claim superiority over progressives. I’d use the term on people who would call others out for being more feminine (i.e. showing compassion, talking things out before forcing people to do things, etc.) but then show those same characteristics themselves, often without them recognizing their hypocrisy.

So, I called Microsoft soy in this case not because they enjoyed relatively progressive policies on human rights for example, but because they regressed on those beliefs by foresaking them and firing one of their employees who acted fully within the policy framework Microsoft themselves had created.

We should not settle with only one side of the societal spectrum name-calling and bullying the other for how they live. All ways of life are acceptable, so long as they don’t impede other’s. Tolerance is not a paradox. It is earned, in trust, as a social contract. If people prove to (routinely) breach that contract, then they deserve no respect in my eyes.

I have no issue with calling people or groups or companies or countries soy in that way.

No, sorry there’s a meme going around online where the English term “soy” (as in soybeans; this term was likely derived from veganism where many vegans drink soy milk instead of cow milk) is being prefixed to nouns or people to denote weakness or just to snark at people, kinda like how people would use snowflake in the past.

I was calling Microsoft “soy” in this way

Soy Microsoft, tbh

Scumbags

Same idea behind conspiracy theories.

Uncertainty is scary. Instead of feeling that fear (and turning to a project like science), any imagination that explains the unknown will work.

One State. Simple

What do you mean my that? Like, your own posts or those of others?

Not sure I’m seeing that on my side. Could be wrong tho

Sync for Lemmy feels just like Reddit is Fun (RiF). So good

Buddy half of American voters voted for trump.

Incorrect. Only 63.7% of eligible voters turned out to vote in the 2024 US General Election.

That comes out to around 155 million voters, of which around 77 million voted for Trump or ~49.8%. Democrats on the other hand got around 75 million or ~48.3%. of the vote.

This comes out to ~31.7% of eligible voters voting Republican with ~30.8% voting Democrat.

Less than a third of Americans wanted Trump in office, not half. Let’s get the facts straight.

The reality is that the majority of American voters

~31.7% of Americans is not a majority, according to the American Heritage Dictionary.

are stupid, lazy, or both.

Have you considered that the actions of Republicans gerrymandering voting districts to hell and passing anti-voting laws and policies, that the actions of Democrats failing to represent their constituents by veering more and more Right, and that the pressures of capitalism, rising inflation, stagnating wages, and a lack of a national holiday where people take off work to go exercise their civic duties are reasons for why more people don’t go out and vote?

Noooooooo, that can’t be. Voters are stupid. Voters are racist. Voters are lazy. And it isn’t the system that has stripped away their material needs that is the problem.