khepri

I really hope app-based 3rd party food delivery just dies soon. The incentives are so fucked up and at cross purposes between the customers, companies, restaurants, and drivers. Like literally no one is getting a good deal out of it except the app itself. Support places that actually want to deliver enough to have their own drivers, and you'll almost always have a smoother, faster, and more professional experience.

Wow I wish there was some penalty for lawyers who deliberately made statements with this much bad faith. First off it's State vs. Federal, so fuck off. Then we're talking breaking into a building to prevent Congress from doing it's job, while assaulting federal law enforcement, versus non-violent document, election, and conspiracy charges, so fuck off again. And by far most important, we're talking about know-nothing foot soldiers who committed blatant federal felonies and had nothing to bargain with, vs Sidney the Goddamn Kraken Powell who must have hard evidence by the boatload that she forked over to score this deal, and who can directly testify about Trump's words and actions and meetings she was in. There's no comparison here, no equivalence, and these J6 defense lawyers trying to gin one up is just offensive.

well looks like this is going to get pretty bad...How is it the responsibility of platforms to take care of your children for you? It's not school, it's not daycare, it's the internet. Does the electric company have some moral or legal obligation to keep your children from jamming a fork in the outlet? Does a public beach need staff on hand to keep children from digging dangerously large sand tunnels that could collapse? Is it up to the water company to provide your child with special means of not flooding your basement? If we need this for some reason, why don't we need to force manufacturers to create cars that won't start for under-16's, windows in high buildings that you have to be 18 to open, or headphones that won't get too loud unless you enter your date of birth? This is some Footloose-level bullshit and I just do not get it I guess.

Sounds like this "study" (aka a self-reported, retrospective, epidemiological survey - which is a type of statistics that I think just confuses the public to call a study but whatever) needs a lot more work to say anything with certainty. The kicker in the article is this I think:

"...the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake." Yikes. That, and it sounds like they didn't control for any of the possible confounding variables such as nutrient intake, demographics, weight, stress, or basically any other risk factors or possible explanations. Its entirely possible that once they actually control for this stuff, the correlation could shrink to almost nothing or even reverse when we see that people who tried this diet were just baseline higher risk than who didn't.

The US stands with Israel, but we aren't going to stand by while they commit war crimes. Good on the Biden administration for forcing this course correction. I hope to keep seeing more and stronger evidence of our commitment to human rights and the international order during this war.

Yeah, it's much more like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing than a trap. Or a "backed yourself in to a corner" you might say, or, "completely fucked yourself and the prosecutor knows it and is going to use it". But it's only setting a trap in the sense that any airtight prosecution tactic based on rules and evidence that leaves the defendant no way out could be called a 'trap'

No appeals based on incompetent/ineffective counsel for a civil case. In a criminal case, a convicted defendant may appeal on the grounds of ineffectiveness of counsel at trial. This principal arises because of the constitutional right to be represented by counsel. Such a right would be meaningless unless it implies a right to effective counsel. There is no such constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and therefore no such ground for appeal in a civil case.

It's just sugar with a teensy bit of the natural brown color from unrefined molasses left in it. I don't find your observation that it takes 5 or 10 times as much of it to sweeten something to be true for me whatsoever, it's almost exactly the same, and leaves me wondering if perhaps you also find that today's low-flow toilets need to be flushed dozens of times to work, or that you turn on modern showers and just a tiny trickle comes out :)

Andrew Tate himself is absolutely a problem, that doesn't preclude there from also being other, related, broader, problems. Usually, when you see an argument in the form of "X thing (small, defined, addressable) isn't the problem, Y thing (large, nebulous, intractable) is the problem!" Then what is happening is someone is re-framing the debate from a cognizable issue to an unsolvable issue, to defuse any actual action. It's a great tactic!

Shrooms specifically were a weird choice for the headline for sure. But it's just another variation on "drugs make you stupid and only teetotallers have an accurate perception of the world". It's really no less offensive than if they'd gone with "only a woman would believe..." or "you'd have to be a middle-school dropout to believe...". Like why? Why target some random group and call them out as idiots incapable of seeing what's right in front of their faces, when it has absolutely 0 to do with the content of the article? You'd have to be on PCP to believe this is a good way to write a headline :D

It's how authoritarians operate in every realm. No matter how fair or objective or established the process is, they will insist on playing the victim, crying wolf, and framing as an attack on "all of us" everything that might infringe on their God-given right to do whatever they want to whoever they want. It's a big part of the reason why you can't give a mouse a cookie when it comes to Nazis.

It's not easy to lose a case by default for failing to comply with discovery. You have to really work hard for the court to basically say "your conduct is so bad that you've forfeited your right to continue making a defense". But due process is still a process, and if you straight up refuse to fulfill your end of the process, and turn down the many chances to comply with discovery that the judge will give you, then this happens. Alex Jones went down for the same thing in his defamation case. These turds all think they can just buck every system or break any norm that suits them, which is why they always go down for the dumbest simplest shit in these cases like perjury, discovery, and witness tampering.

No kidding, I don't know why she feels the need to insert herself in this year's politics with this super divisive "cult deprogramming" language/narrative. Not that a lot of folks don't need to step down from the rhetoric of violence and demagoguery that's a big part of MAGA, they absolutely, do... but seriously, Hillary, you are such an unnecessary bull in the china shop on this right now. Like her or hate her, I think it's a pretty objective statement that bringing the temperature down and bringing people together just isn't something her presence and choice of language in this debate is going to accomplish.

Good for her. Jordan doesn't have a leg to stand on thanks to the extremely basic principle of federalism that gives our 50 states huge leeway over how and when to prosecute crimes in their state. The idea that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would reach down from his national duties to actively try to investigate and derail the ongoing work of a county prosecutor is just repellent to the very framework, laws, and concept of the Union of separately-empowered states that is our country.

I don't disagree, it's just nice to see my country pushing for any tiny amount of adherence to international laws in this specific case and I hope we see more of it.

It really sucks that the attitude of "how about we don't support anyone who's violating international law?" can't seem to survive a massive terrorist attack, whether we're talking about 9/11 or these horrible events. I absolutely condemn these unforgivable attacks against innocent civilians, and I absolutely condemn any response to those attacks that violates international law by targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure, or by blockading and starving an entire city. I can see daylight between "we stand with Israel" and "we support any and all actions of the Israeli government and armed forces without caveat" but there's not much room for that opinion in the immediate aftermath of something like this. The ultimate price needs to paid by those responsible, but the City of Gaza didn't do this, and the Palestinian people writ large didn't do this. The trillions of dollars and millions of lives wasted in the 20-year War on Terror that 9/11 kicked off needs to be a cautionary tale, not something we look to repeat. To put it another way, we would not blockade, starve, and invade Texas just because a lot of J6ers and other heavily-armed anti-government militia folks happen to live there - we hunt down those actually responsible for actual crimes with precision and ferocity and bring them to justice. We don't respond to an attack by punishing the entire geographical area and ethnic population from which that attack may have originated. been there, done that, doesn't ever work. Didn't work for the Soviets, didn't work the Japanese, didn't work for the US, won't work here.

Oh they will absolutely bring the hammer down if she doesn't do and say everything by the book from this point forward, that's the point of a plea deal. It gets the defendant out of (most of the) trouble, but it locks them in to testifying fully and truthfully about the case from then on. If the prosecutor/judge thinks they aren't holding up that promise, the deal is taken away. You really do have to go full state's evidence if you take a deal like this, and they are not playing around with the threat of piling all those felony charges - and more - right back on you if you don't sing just the way the DOJ wants you to.

I get what you're saying, but I think the whole idea that if you actually want your point-to-point delivery, which is the service you paid for, you're making the driver "go out of their way" is the whole weird debate people in the thread are having. Like, the service is the service, or at least it should be, if it's making doordash "go out of their way" to dash ya know, to my door...well that's not the expectation these companies set with their customers I guess is all I have to say there.

Can't argue with that, but it's a bit like saying that the surface of the Sun and a day at the beach are both hot. Like, I can't argue with you because of how you stated it, but there are matters of degrees in both cases.

Make sure to show him your love by not voting for him on election day then, just like he told you!

Finally one guy is coming kinda close to saying what all Republicans should have been saying since 2016, and it's somehow news. Christie and MAGA can both go get fucked, you're way too late and many dollars short to suddenly rebrand as the principled one you angry tub of mayo.

Inflation and low wages are caused by people asking door-to-door delivery drivers to actually deliver door-to-door? Guess I'll go save the economy by hopping out my taxi before they actually get to the airport then to save those folks some time and gas and tamp down that pesky inflation!

It's my right to have my personal computer display what I want it to display. It's my right set my device to reject internet traffic I don't want to receive. It's my right to instruct my machine to download the data I want, and refuse to download the data I don't want. If you make something publicly available online, then the public can consume that or refuse that, in part or in whole, as and when they wish. If a company or a browser wants to try and interfere with that, then they've chosen their fate.

I wonder about that, because how many things are already recording our activity in some way when we're out in public? And what would "knowing that you're being recorded" consist of? Like if there's a security camera on the corner of a building filming the sidewalk, and I don't see it, is my privacy violated? If someone posts a sign that says "cameras in use" is that enough? It's just an interesting question because obviously there are a huge variety of recording devices everywhere these days in public and as far as I know there's really not much in the way of laws dictating how or whether the device owner needs to warn people who may wander into it's range in public.

Shatner for one, who at the time was arguably still the most-recognizable name in sci-fi TV and movies.

two groups of people working in the same branch of government having a meeting does sound pretty bad tbh, should probably have Jim Jordan get on that.

Just the way this is going to go I guess. Ukraine has to fight with one hand tied behind their back, because the US says so, because appeasement like that always works when autocrats invade sovereign nations... Imagine in the late 1930s the UK ordering, lets say Poland, to not set foot on German soil and only fight in Poland because otherwise (gasp) we might make Hitler really mad and he might do something crazy. So too bad for you Poland, but we'll just have to adandon support for you if you attack inside Germany, just how these things go...

I don't see why they'd need to occupy anything. Occupation would imply that you wanted to control that area and those people. I think Israel knows occupation would never work and wouldn't try it. They've preferred to wall-off people in enclaves, slowly squeeze all life out of those regions, and when the people they have cornered inevitably violently lash out against their own slow-motion genocide, it's time to flatten the area with bombs again. Israel calls it "mowing the grass" and I don't think a massive occupation fits with that strategy. I think they want to break the region, scatter the people, and leave it to rot, not occupy and be forced to manage it into the future indefinitely.

Yeah, even most of the judges he appointed, who he no doubt hoped would be in his pocket forever, seem to recognize that supporting Trump, the way he'd like to be supported, in an actual legal proceeding, would be weapons-grade stupid for them. Trump has an outside chance at another 4 years, maybe, whereas these judges are on the bench for life in most cases, and most of them get that they'll have to be able to operate in future administrations rather than burn their careers for this dumbdumb the way he gets his lawyers to do.

I don't expect perfection, but I do expect companies and employees (even gig employees) to fulfill the basic promises they make about what their service consists of. Surely not too much to ask?

I don't think it has to be easy, these are tough jobs. So are most jobs, and mistakes do happen. But I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting the service that the company is offering to actually be performed to completion. I get it's tough working in something like an oil change place, but promising to do the whole job and then deciding to save yourself some time by not putting a filter on because "things are seldom so straight forward" would not, I'd hope, be acceptable to anyone involved.

The old Chevy Sparks are basically golf carts with 4 doors and permission to drive in the roads. They are the least "techy" EVs I've seen in person as they are really just a battery swap with the minimally-appointed ICE version of the car, which is very sparse on the electronic doodads.

I think it's more the nature of the question being "hey is it cool if I don't complete the delivery as written and just save myself some minutes by doing curbside when we promised door-to-door?" That's what I'd have to guess is annoying to people.

Of course. If you promise to do something, but don't intend to follow through, did you still make that promise? Yes you did. If that promise was legally binding (as in an oath of office or oath before a court) you can of course be held accountable for that oath whether you "believe" in the thing or not. Can you imagine what a mess it would be if you could just say "well I don't believe in the Bible, so I can lie in front of a judge all I want since they made me swear on a Bible"?

Absolutely right. "Impartial" doesn't mean you've never heard of the person, or never seen them on the news, or don't live near them, or have no opinion of them, or haven't heard or believe things about what they've done. It means just what you said, that whoever is picked will be able to listen to the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision based on that evidence. Apparently a huge number of people believe this is functionally impossible for humans to do, which is pretty sad if you've let your politics overwhelm your reason to such a degree that you think no one else can be objective either.

It's a classic shithead defense to try and tell a judge "the paper did a piece on my crimes and everyone read it, so I can't get a fair trial!!" Well guess what, that never works, for anyone, ever. There is no such thing as "too famous" for justice, there is no such thing as "too infamous" for justice. And there is no such thing as "the vast majority of people in NY and DC and GA hate me so badly because of who I am and what I've done that no one in those states can be allowed to judge me for my acts."

Thankfully we put career criminals, well-known in their communities, who people have heard of, on trial all the time. Could you imagine if "I'm too famous as a dirtbag to be tried by a jury of my peers" was a defense?

That's all well and good, I agree with virtually all you said. It's certainly the admins' right to block or de-federate any community they want, based on risk or just because they feel like it, I have no issue with that. It's simply my personal belief that discussion of crime is not a crime. Direct links to illegal content should not be allowed, but discussion about piracy in general should carry no more risk that learning about murder in a criminology class, which does not need to be banned just because it's teaching people things they could in theory use to get away with murder.

Legally speaking, you pretty much consent to being recorded when you step outside your own private space as far as I know.

I think they should really go all out and just text "is it cool if I deliver to you at the restaurant parking lot, I got a real busy night, just come on down and help a guy out?"

It got "Slammed"