This is precisely what would change:
the possible proposal would still require companies to include the disclaimer on their products at least once, but it would no longer require it to be repeated every time a health claim appears.
Meh, not nearly as big a deal as the headline suggests. And from the looks of this thread, not many people actually got this far into the article, and just made assumptions based on the headline, so sensationalism wins again, I guess…
Yeah, ridiculous. It’s not like the court didn’t recognize the putrescence of the acts in general, since others got over 20 years.
Even the fucking camera guy, who apparently wasn’t involved in the actual trafficking at all, got 4 years. Is any sane person going to argue that his offense is twice as bad as hers?
I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.
You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.
The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.
So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.
Criminal charges isn’t a fucking conviction.
Nobody said it was, straw man builder. But the headline is deliberately misleading, and that’s what I was pointing out.
There is literally zero reason to cherry-pick specific cities when assessing ICE’s actions as a department.
What point are you trying to make about it being higher than the general population?
…that that demographic contains more than double the incidence of violent criminals than the general population. What else?
That they are doing ever so slightly better than arresting people at random?
The crime ICE is arresting people for is not a violent one, so this is a complete non-sequitur.
Ostensibly, at least.
With violent conviction: 7%
That’s a lot higher than the general population, isn’t it? Google says it’s 2-4% estimated (there’s apparently no explicit data collected on specifically violent convictions—there is for “felony” convictions, but there are a ton of non-violent felonies, so that’s pretty useless for this kind of comparison).
I also can’t help but notice that the article, especially the headline, is very careful to say “most” only about certain “city crackdowns”. According to the same chart in the article, among all ICE arrests across the US from Jan 20th to Oct 15th, only 33% had “No criminal charges”, which means 67% of them did have criminal charges. Pretty stark contrast to what the headline would like to imply, isn’t it?
Overall, pretty blatant cherry-picking. I hate that it’s so difficult to find media that will just present the facts without any spin.
That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.
That is the point they’re making.
Is there another more ‘generic’ German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of ‘he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer’, and then no need to keep using “Fuhrer” anymore in the rest of the article.
I’ve never used AI for interview stuff, beyond a little thing that gave me sample questions and assessed my recorded verbal response, to use as prep before an interview, but in reading that, I remembered that Nvidia has a thing where a visual effect will make your eyes look like you’re looking straight into the camera all the time (unless they’re totally closed of course), and imagined this type of person using that as further subterfuge during the interview, to conceal the ‘looking down’.
Luckily, the average person leaning completely on AI for an interview is not nearly savvy enough for this sort of thing, in my experience.
That seems suspiciously low.
It’s the real/non-propaganda number. The huge numbers you often see define “paycheck to paycheck” as simply ‘not saving any money’, but that includes people who make plenty of money, and just spend it all (by this definition, 1/4 of people earning at least six figures “live paycheck to paycheck”), and there are simply many more of those than there are people actually barely getting by. On the other hand:
The financial firm defines [living paycheck to paycheck] as spending more than 95% of household income on necessities such as housing, gasoline, groceries, utility bills and internet service.
This is a much more accurate definition of “living paycheck to paycheck”.
Calling his mentality “boys will be boys” when he very clearly said ‘kids will be kids’, very directly implies that you are accusing him of giving male children a pass that he wouldn’t give female children.
And that’s a completely baseless assumption fabricated in your own mind to rationalize labeling him misogynistic. You’re calling him sexist based on nothing but your own bias.
There is zero evidence that he wouldn’t say the exact same thing about a group of girls making AI edits of their male classmates, and there is evidence that he would—namely, his actual words.
Your baseless accusation falls firmly under the ‘dishonesty’ umbrella.
You lied that the father said “boys will be boys”, and all I did was point out the lie and correct it, by quoting his actual words, and pointing out their gender neutrality.
So people who call out and correct liars enable rapists? Explain how. Be specific.
It’s about damned time. We honestly should have nothing smaller than quarters right now, going by the same logic as discontinuing the half-penny forever ago (which had more equivalent purchasing power than the dime does now).
“Super fucking common” struck me as hyperbolic, so I dug a bit.
Here, under the most recent data, 2019-20, “Removal with no services for remainder of school year”, which is close to expulsion but not quite as severe on paper (if I understand correctly that expulsion is ‘you can’t come back ever’, not just ‘you can’t come back until next year’), is something that happened in response to “Physical fights or attacks” at only 5.1% of schools.
Not being allowed to contact a parent while distressed at school especially strikes me as bad. Even if they have no good reason to be freaked out, preventing a distressed student from reaching out to a parent while at school really sits poorly with me.
Source? That’s news to me, and when I tried finding a source myself, all I found were extensions etc. to add that to the browser.
EDIT: Both the comment I replied to, and a comment replying to me by the same person, have been deleted…were they caught in a lie/mistake and not brave enough to admit it? lol