Calm down, gang. Even Jackson agreed with the judgment, if not all of the reasoning. Corrupt Court, sure, but this one they probably got right. I hate Starbucks too, and I wish the NLRB the sharpest teeth in the world, but preliminary injunctive relief should be extraordinary.
I can’t even read this stuff anymore and not picture a drunk/high homeless kid getting righteously thrown out of a stolen truck.
Warning, Reddit link: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fkftiwovba73b1.jpg
The thing that did it for me is the picture making the rounds of the truck sight lines showing the M1 as safer than an F250 in terms of blind spot. These things are really ridiculous.
Yeah, my bad. I forgot how cool it is to just spout whatever bullshit you want. Hurray for ignorance.
No wonder humanity is doomed.
That an opinion lacks evidence does not alleviate the requirement that its factual allegations be supported by evidence. “I don’t think the surface of the earth is curved” may be an opinion, but it’s a provably wrong assertion, and adding a disclamitory phrase to it doesn’t excuse the statement from evaluation.
Citation needed.
They decided to sell access to the content in exchange for user information, thereby forcing human readers to choose between surrendering privacy or using other means to access the content, all in order to make up purportedly for a perceived slight by bots. Maybe their motives are pure as the driven snow–and it’s their content, so they can wall it off however they please–but I’m confident you don’t genuinely mean to suggest that this measure will stop the content from being scraped and fed to LLMs.
Datawalled. >(
That’s a game of legal Russian roulette I wouldn’t want to play. Eventually he’s going to rip off the wrong person, and in the meantime all his victims have the option of sitting on their claims (SOL notwithstanding) to find out if he ever makes any money.
It’s a broad generalization, but it’s not really a matter of opinion. We can scan people’s mouths and faces when they talk (and have in order to demonstrate this stuff). I think the last example probably only applies that way in particular circumstances though, since English speakers automatically group, contract, and arrange certain phonemes in certain orders (e.g., I’m not, I ain’t, but never I amn’t–and in real speech “I ain’t” is almost always one syllable). In this example, more frequently my country ass contracts the first syllable of “gonna” away instead of the second, so “I’m 'na head to the store; y’all need anything?”
The hot potato example just stands for the premise that in real speech the t at the end of hot and the p at the beginning of potato slur together, and if you deliberately enunciate both consonants, you sound like you’re reading to a transcriber. Compare the way a normal person says “let’s go” to the way you sound if you force separate the words: you sound like you’re doing a Mario impression.
I don’t know that company personally, but at a glance it appears to be a for-profit corporation that has been the subject of litigation recently. So… not really what we need.
The funding needs to be going into public schools via taxes, not to private corporations via tuition. We need local oversight by public schools accountable to voters for all education. That company–again, at a glance–seems to be the exact opposite, and kind of part of the problem.
Alternative schooling arrangements need to exist, and the pandemic really demonstrated why. They just need to be subject to oversight by the state public schools.
The problem with a punishment mesmer, defensive juggernaut anything, and turret engie is that they result in degenerate gameplay. Turrets can’t be allowed to succeed in PVE (see: Lake Doric), and none of these class fantasies can be allowed at all in PVP.
Turrets and juggernauts turn into turtling bunkers that either grind play to a halt or turn into raid bosses, and the only way to balance them is to essentially make the style of play unfun for the person who wants it. “Being unkillable” or “controlling this space” can’t be supported in a competitive game mode. Now, you can balance this by just splitting everything and making the specs unplayable or wildly different in competitive modes, but that means you’re now devoting the dev resources to build the thing twice (for both modes), yet players can only really enjoy it in PVE. From a design perspective, that’s a really poor return on investment for an elite spec.
Punishment mesmer worked in GW1 because you had much better defined roles in all game modes with less overlap, and there was ability parity between players and NPCs, so you could interact with an enemy mob essentially the same way you’d interact with an enemy player. In GW2, you can’t punish a playstyle because playstyles aren’t that well defined, and you can’t create a niche for hex gameplay because they gave everybody else the mesmer toys (see: Torment and Confusion). If you try to make a spec that depends on them even more than certain mesmer specs already do, the byproduct will be turning revs into gods (again). There’s also no energy denial in GW2, and you can’t give a player a bar full of interrupts because everybody already has as many interrupts as the game can support without being catastrophically unfun. GW2 is just the wrong kind of game for GW1’s mesmer–like a lot of things that were better in GW1.
If you ask me, we don’t need more elite specs. We need more non-elite specs–stuff we can combine more freely with what we already have–and we need the elites to be “de-elited” so that the power level of the vanilla specs have better parity with their elite counterparts. I know they’ve taken a pass at this before (or two or three), but it has clearly not panned out. The presence of multiple options for ranged elementalists, for example, is definitely something that needs to be supported.
Someone willing to pay a juror a $120k bribe is probably also willing to kill a juror who takes the bag of cash and doesn’t keep their end of the deal.
Keeping the money and not keeping the deal is a no-win for the juror. Best case scenario, you sleep on your $120k with one eye open for the rest of your stressed out life.
Thank you. I’ve had this conversation with family members way too often. They love their local chiropractor. They always leave feeling so much better, etc. I ask them what he does, what his advice is, and what kinds of questions he asks them, and everything they describe is not chiropractic. It’s massage, or nursing, or physician. No wonder you love him: He’s practicing medicine.
Ded a chek?
No, sorry. I try to be deferential when talking about this stuff, but this is pretty cut and dry, and I’m afraid you’re just wrong here. This is Greek–not theology. πίστις is the word we’re talking about. It shares the common root with πείθω–“to persuade” (i.e., that evidence is compelling or trustworthy). πίστις is the same word you would use in describing the veracity of a tribunal’s judgment (for example, “I have πίστις that the jurors in NY got the verdict right/wrong”). The Greeks used the word to personify honesty, trust, and persuasiveness prior to the existence of Christianity (although someone who knows Attic or is better versed in Greek mythology feel free to correct me). The word is inherently tied up with persuasion, confidence, and trust since long before the New Testament. The original audience of the New Testament would have understood the meaning of the word without depending on any prior relation to religion.
Is trust always a better translation? Of course not–and that’s why, you’ll notice, I didn’t say that (and if it were, one would hope that many of the very well educated translators of Bibles would have used it). But I think you can agree that the concept is also difficult for English to handle (since trust in a person, trust in a deity, and trust in a statement are similar but not quite the same thing, and the same goes for belief in a proposition, belief in a person, and belief in an ideal or value, to say nothing of analogous concepts like loyalty and integrity).
The point is that πίστις–faith–absolutely does not mean belief without evidence, and Christianity since its inception has never taught that. English also doesn’t use the word “faith” to imply the absence of evidence, and we don’t need to appeal to another language to understand that. It’s why the phrase “blind faith” exists (and the phrase is generally pejorative in religious circles as well as secular ones).
Now, if you think the evidence that convinces Christians to conclude that Jesus’ followers saw Him after His death is inadequate, that’s perfectly valid and a reasonable criticism of Christianity–and if you want to talk about that, that would be apologetics.
In any event, if you’re going to call something bullshit, you better have a lot of faith in the conclusion you’re drawing. ;)
I can think of few things that would restore and bolster my faith in government more than watching the arms of the state rapidly, effectively, and effortlessly put down an active, armed rebellion against the democratically elected institutions of the nation.
Anyone who marches on the Capitol to unseat the legitimate government of the United States should be met with lethal force, preferably while on camera being broadcast live.
And that includes anyone who marches on the Capitol to unseat a legitimate Republican government.
Flowing from the rule of law is the peaceful transfer of power, and flowing from that is the presence of loyal opposition.
A government that defends the people’s ability to select it with the means entrusted to it is doing exactly what it should. The bitch my state sends to the Senate is an utter slimeball whom I despise with the very core of my being. But the people of my state in their wisdom sent her to DC, so anybody who charges that building with designs on her life should immediately eat a red, white, and blue bullet. If the government fails to defend that bitch, then it has failed me, and my faith in it will have been tarnished.
That’s my perception of the government in such an event. I certainly don’t speak for everyone.