It was an interview with Jonathan Swan about COVID-19 where Trump had a bunch of papers with graphs trying to show that the US was doing well with cases. The paper he handed over showed the rates of deaths per case (though Trump didn't seem to understand the graph), and Swan was asking him about the high rate of deaths in the US when looking at the total population of the country.
In case anybody is curious about the claim that October 23 is too late, I updated the Wikipedia page listing the past debates to include the date.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_debates
In general, the first debate takes place in late September or early October, and the final debate occurs in mid to late October with two or three debates being the norm. The first debate occurring in June is new this year as the debates normally start after the nominations are complete.
So, unsurprisingly, Trump's argument has no historical basis and complaining that the debate is too close to the election is nonsense.
From the article, it's clear that their first resort was to call the police when he was banging and kicking on the door. The woman was on the phone with the police when he broke the window and attempted to open the door through the broken pane.
While the woman was on the phone with police, Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door "and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob," at which point the male resident fired the shot through the broken window, striking Donofrio in his upper body, police said.
Well the origins were laudable, it's just that it was shortly thereafter extended for racist means. Binet and Simon wanted to see if they could devise a test to measure intelligence in children, and they ultimately came up with a way to measure a child's mental age.
At the time, problem children who did poorly in school were assumed to be sick and sent to an asylum. They proposed that some children were just slow, but they could still be successful if they got more help. Their test was meant to identify the slow children so that they could allocate the proper resources to them.
Later, their ideas were extended beyond the education system to try to prove racial hierarchies, and that's where much of the controversy comes from. The other part is that the tests were meant to identify children that would struggle in school. They weren't meant to identify geniuses or to understand people's intelligence level outside of the classroom.
I started a job at a regional bank on a team that was responsible for integrating the data from newly acquired banks into their systems. The team was overworked and definitely needed more hands on deck, but they didn't have time to train anybody new on the process. Aside from that, the organization of the team was pretty poor.
When I started, they seemed unaware that I was supposed to be starting that day, so they didn't have a desk or anything ready for me. So that first day was a bit of a wash. The second day, they put me at a desk on the floor above the rest of my team. That was also the only time that I met the manager who hired me. It seemed like people mostly forgot about me because I didn't really get any work assigned until a couple weeks in.
They wanted me to make one of their mapping documents (which appeared to be a SQL statement copied into a Word document with every detail meticulously documented across twenty pages). I didn't have any idea where to start with it. The next day, they said that there is no way I could do that without training, so they took the assignment away. Over the next couple of months, I'd bring up that I didn't have anything to work on at every morning meeting. But other than that, I just spent my day editing Wikipedia articles.
Eventually they keyed in on the fact that they were paying me $90k per year to do nothing, so they fired me. They said it was probably their fault for hiring somebody without banking experience. I don't think banking experience would have helped.
Oh yeah, and the meeting where I was fired was also where I found out that the person firing me was my team lead.
It sounds like this it is actively preventing people from getting divorced.
This is something that was brought to me by folks in my community who shared that it was a huge problem,” Aune said. In a committee meeting, she shared the story of a woman affected by the existing law, saying: “Not only was she being physically and emotionally abused, but there was reproduction coercion used. When she found out she was pregnant and asked a lawyer if she could get a divorce, she was essentially told no. It was so demoralizing for her to hear that. She felt she had no options.”
I prefer Software Engineer, mostly because I studied at an engineering school and have a degree in Software Engineering. My actual titles have varied throughout my career, but I overall consider myself a software engineer.
For me it's, "I shouldn't be doing this. I'll never find it again. This is an awful place to put this," as I commit to setting something down in the abyss.
Your assertion is that Biden has not tried to contact DeSantis to offer help. You were provided with an article that says otherwise and dismissed it as false. What evidence do you hand that supports your claim that Biden has not attempted to contact DeSantis? Other Republican governors have said that Biden was quick to reach out in regards to Helene, so it's hard to believe that he hasn't tried to contact Florida.
Yes. The last person that the United States executed for desertion, Eddie Slovik in 1945, was tried in a military court, found guilty, and executed.
I assume that Russia would have rules for the same. Whether they are followed is the question.
It's not physical damage to her brain. She has schizophrenia and developed symptoms of it at an abnormally young age. She didn't have a clear grasp on what was and wasn't real and that ultimately led her to stab her friend nineteen times. It's clearly a condition that has presented itself as very dangerous for her, and it needs to be under control before she can be released.
When it comes to lead pipes, it is possible for them to safely carry water without the risk of leaching lead into the drinking water, but it relies on the pipes being properly maintained and the water being properly treated. This is where the issue came with Flint.
Prior to 2014, the Flint River was a backup source for drinking water with the primary source being Lake Huron. However, Flint was facing a financial crisis and decided to switch their water supply to the Flint River. When they switched, they also chose to save money by not treating the new water source with the additional anticorrosion materials that would be necessary for the different properties of this water. This caused the existing lead pipes to corrode through the protective layer that had naturally formed previously, allowing lead to leach into the water supply.
Aside from the dangers of lead contamination for the human body, there is another concern when it comes to water treatment. Lead reacts with chlorine, and chlorine is added to drinking water to protect against harmful bacteria. Since there was now a significant amount of lead leaching into the water, a notable portion of the chlorine was now bound to the lead and was not available to kill harmful bacteria. This created the initial problems that were identified by residents in Flint, MI, and it was later discovered that the water supply now had detectable levels of lead.
So Flint exemplifies the issue well. Lead pipes are dangerous and should not be used, but that danger isn't absolute. Because lead pipes can be safe, we've let this problem fester for decades. However, it takes a lot of care and attention to keep using these pipes safely, and, as can be seen in Flint, it is very easy for those precautions to be tossed aside. When that happens, it becomes a major crisis very quickly.
If he were merely telling unfunny, inoffensive jokes, people would stop listening. But people wouldn't call that canceling; they'd just say that he used to be great and place the blame on his shoulders. But because it's unfunny, offensive jokes, it's suddenly the audience's fault for walking away.
Don't blame the audience for refusing to listen to him. It's his job to draw people in, and it's his fault if he fails to do so.
National Institute of Corrections: World Prison Population List (2015)
There are more than 10.35 million people incarcerated throughout the world with the most being in the United States--more than 2.2 million.
For digital copies of written works in the public domain, projectgutenberg.org is a good source.
It's not so much that as that the coalitions and eventual parties wanted to hold both seats, so they ran multiple candidates with the assumption that one would be president and the other vice president. The electors would then structure their votes to ensure that the correct person was elected to each position. However, with the difficulties in long-distance communication at the time, this was prone to error. In 1800, this almost led to the candidate for vice president being elected as president.
After that, they realized that it didn't make sense to use one slate of candidates for both positions, so they separated out the ballot into president and vice president. That's essentially how the elections had been running up to that point (particularly because they always had two votes to cast), but it was to easy to make a mistake. Both before and after the amendment, there was a presidential candidate with a running mate vying for the vice presidency.
Looking at a map with the current polls (and focusing on the toss-ups), it seems that the most viable path to victory for Harris is to pick up PA, MI, and WI. If she drops PA, she'd need MI, NV, WI or AZ, and GA or NC, but that seems like a big ask. If she wins PA, she could lose WI if she picks up AZ, GA, or NC and she could lose MI if she wins GA, NC, or AZ and NV. But winning PA and losing both WI and MI would require winning AZ and either GA or NC.
So there are a few paths to a Harris win, and a few don't seem very farfetched, but none of them seem likely enough for comfort. Definitely not how I was hoping to be feeling at this point in the election.
The vacuum is the hard part, not the maglev. You would need to enclose the entire track inside if a vacuum, and that world be ridiculously expensive and practically impossible with current technology. It's already very expensive to build a tunnel for a train, which is why they are avoided if possible. But this would need to be all tunnel that is air tight, so even more expensive than regular train tunnels.
To put it into perspective, the current largest manmade vacuum chamber is at a NASA research facility in Ohio. It's a cylinder with a diameter of 100 feet and a height of 122 feet. If this were laid on its side, about 1.5 New York subway cars could fit inside. The largest vacuum ever made can barely fit the vehicle inside, let alone allow it to travel between two different places where the extra speeds would be warranted.
Yes. A government shutdown is what happens when Congress fails to pass a law that allows the federal government the necessary funds to operate. If the House is unable to pass such a law, the federal government will shut down.
And his advisor on, and ambassador to, Israel literally wrote a book promoting a one state solution where he said that the US has a Biblical obligation to help Israel win. His ultimate plan is to set up an apartheid state where Palestinians do not have the same rights as Israelis.
From the wiki, the idea comes from an essay that somebody has written about a conversation they had with a friend about the struggles of chronic illness. The conversation took place at a restaurant, and she grabbed the spoons for use in a metaphor because there were spoons nearby. She gave her friend a set of spoons, and every time her friend mentioned doing a task, she took a spoon away.
It could have been anything, but spoons happened to be at hand and she wanted to make a physical representation of an abstract concept. The essay resonated with people, so spoons became entrenched. And now I hear people say that they're all out of spoons to express the idea that they've done all that they can that day.
He was a 19 year old man in the Netherlands talking to a 12 year old child in the United Kingdom on Facebook. He traveled to see her in the UK, got her drunk, raped her, and then attempted to get a hotel room with her. They couldn't, so they slept under a stairwell and he raped her twice the next day. She had told him at one point that he was hurting her, but that didn't stop him. After that, he flew back to the Netherlands and told her to go to a clinic for contraception.
So they were essentially strangers to each other with a significant age gap. I don't know what her exact intentions were when speaking with him, but she was 12. Even if she were thinking about sex, it would not have been with an understanding of what that actually meant. She wasn't just under age, she was well under the legal age of consent. There's a reason that children cannot legally consent to sex.
Also, he's never really shown any remorse for his actions. At best, he's said that it was the biggest mistake of his life, but his overall stance seems to be that he regrets getting caught rather than raping a child. He's much more angry at people calling him a pedophile than he is at himself for doing wrong. So your final points may be true, but they aren't really relevant to his case because it doesn't appear that he could be considered rehabilitated. He's merely completed a prison sentence which was made lighter by Dutch law not classifying his actions as rape at the time.
"Jones" is an American slang word meaning to be addicted to something, so "jonesing" for something means to crave something very strongly, and generally very vocally.
"Breve" is a coffee drink that is commonly made with half-and-half, which is a product that is equal parts cream and milk. I assume that people have taken to using the term to refer to half-and-half itself, but I've not personally heard that.
So the sentence is saying that their cat was addicted to half-and-half and would act like a junkie doing anything to get their next fix.
Same thing with me and chess in high school. I learned TrueBASIC, and I didn't learn about arrays or subroutines. But, I did manage to make a chess application that two people could play a game of chess on. It highlighted legal moves when you clicked on a piece and ensured that only legal moves were made. It also showed the captured pieces to the side of the board. I think I had it set up so that you could only promote to a previously captured piece, but all the other rules were implemented properly (or at least, I assumed they were).
The implementation involved a bunch of variables for each individual chess piece and a bunch of if statements inside a loop. I remember describing arrays and explaining that I wished they existed, but never actually found out they did until I was finished. I don't know how many lines of code it was, but when I copied it into Word, and it spanned about 350 pages in total.
Part of me is proud of the accomplishment. Another part is horrified.
He's referring to what he said when the Senate acquited Trump after he was impeached by the House.
Trump's lawyers are trying to argue that he can't be prosecuted by the courts for actions he took as president unless he is first impeached and convicted in Congress for those actions. When Trump was impeached and acquitted in 2021, McConnell stated that Congress can't impeach him as he is no longer in office and that the matter is an issue for the criminal justice system.
As shit as McConnell is, he is not confused with his dates right now, and his statements from 2021 are very relevant to this case and have been discussed in the news a lot recently.
I'm also not sure what's wrong with your quoted text. Nothing about it sounds confused to me.
US News (Feb 14, 2021): Text of McConnell's Speech
President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.
We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.
Oh, and once you build that, I'll move in and expect you to build the rest of the house on top of it.
Red Dye #3 is not commonly used in the United States anymore. Instead, Red Dye #40 is used and works just fine as a safe replacement.
Brominated Vegetable Oil is used to emulsify flavor oils into water and is commonly used in citrus soft drinks. Sucrose Acetate Isobutyrate and Glycerol Ester of Wood Rosin are both be used for the same purpose.
Potassium Bromide is added to flour to strengthen dough, allowing for a greater rise during baking. It appears that Ascorbic Acid (vitamin C) can replace much of its use.
Propylparaben is an antifungal preservative that is used in packaged baked goods to prevent mold. There are other preservatives that can be used, but it sounds like parabens are the most effective for preserving non-acidic foods. I assume that propylparaben will be replaced by some other paraben.
You're saying that it doesn't matter because the US government is able to prove his citizenship, but that isn't in question. The crux of this matter would be whether OP was ignorant of his citizenship and if that ignorance would have any relevance to his case.
Securing official documents only available to American citizens makes it more difficult to argue that he was ignorant of his status as an American citizen. He likely could still make a compelling argument (provided he acts quickly), but it does make it a bit more difficult.
The rationale that they've provided (at least on NPR a few weeks ago) is that Republicans insist that abortion should be a states' rights issue, not a federal issue. Most people are able to choose where they live and ideally are able to move to states that agree with them in regards to abortion rights. However, members of the military have no such freedom, so it's not fair to them to deny them access to health services due to where they've been assigned to live.
The implied followup argument is that the military is already struggling to recruit new soldiers, and denying people access to essential healthcare is only going to make that task more difficult.
If you ever use SQL Server Management Studio, you can experience the opposite. Whenever there's an update, you'll get a notification in the application, but to actually install it, you need to go to Microsoft's website to download the latest version and install it yourself. Chrome, on the other hand, updates itself upon restart without requiring anything special from the user.
As a software developer, I really like that part. It means that websites I work on only need to consider the features supported in the latest version of major browsers rather than the last several (as was the case with Internet Explorer).
So, it's nice and something that I remember really appreciating when Chrome was getting popular. But it's still a weird thing to brag about.
You're talking about the court system. They are talking about Content ID. YouTube makes it easy to submit faulty copyright claims with little repercussions if they fail, so there are more fraudulent claims than you'd see in the actual court system. They want YouTube to penalize the abuse of their system more strongly so people that upload videos don't have to deal with so much shit.
I actually had written an answer about the effects of the 12th amendment on the politics StackExchange that details how the original elections worked (or failed) under the old system.
The interesting thing to me about this is that after Washington, there had always been running mates, and the problem wasn't that the President and Vice President may be political opponents. The problem was the old system was open to gamesmanship that thwarted the will of the voters.
1796 did not end with an Adams-Jefferson administration because Jefferson came in second. If things went as planned, it would have been Adams-Pinckney instead. But Hamilton preferred Pinckney over Adams and tried to sway the electors for Jefferson-Burr to vote Jefferson-Pinckney instead, which would have led to a Pinckney-Adams administration despite Pinckney campaigning with Adams as his presumptive Vice President. However, his plan didn't work out, and Jefferson ended up getting the second most number of votes. This led to an Adams-Jefferson administration which was not supposed to happen. This was bad, but the shady dealings happened in the dark, and Adams was at least elected President in accordance to the popular vote. The politicians at the time thought that they could just sweep this under the rug as they now had a better understanding of how to manage their electors.
But, that turned out to be false. In 1800, they planned to be smarter with allocating the electors' votes, but the Democratic-Republicans failed and accidentally cast the same number of votes for both Jefferson and Burr. Under the Constitution, a tie is decided in the House, and the makeup of the House meant that Federalists had the advantage. They preferred Burr over Jefferson, so they tried to subvert the election and appoint a Burr-Jefferson administration rather than Jefferson-Burr. Hamilton ultimately convinced the Federalists to relent and give the election to Jefferson. This was now the second time that Hamilton intervened to orchestrate the results of the election, and this time, it was all out in the open on the House floor. Furthermore, in both of these instances, Hamilton's actions screwed over Burr, leading to the infamous Hamilton-Burr duel that left Hamilton dead and Burr disgraced. So not only did the election show that this Constitution was failing in the democratic ideals of the revolution, it also led to the untimely downfall of two of the country's top political leaders.
So yes, the 1796 election exposed a pretty major issue, and the 1800 election showed that that issue could not be ignored. However, if you're suggesting that the 1796 election led to the 12th Amendment because it showed the problems that arise when the President and Vice President are not politically aligned, I'm not so sure. It's possible, but I don't think that was a revelation to them. At the very least, the parties at the time were always trying to fill both offices with specific people, even before the 12th Amendment. The biggest problem they were trying to address was the way that the old system could be gamed by political elites.
Also, sorry for the big wall of text. I just find this to be a very interesting topic.
Not only is it legal in most states, it's actively kept legal. It's not just some old, irrelevant law that only exists because people haven't noticed.
E.g., here's an exchange from Missouri a few years ago where a state senator references an attempt to end child marriage.
The executive branch is a bureaucracy that has to follow procedures. The president can direct the agency to start these processes, and that's what he done. The HHS has done the necessary work to show that cannabis is deserving of a lower schedule according to the Controlled Substances Act. It is now up to the DEA to review that data and reschedule it accordingly. This is the process stipulated by the law, and the executive branch must adhere to it. If they don't, it will be undone in the courts.
The alternative route would be for Congress to pass a new law to specifically legalize cannabis, but they do not have the numbers, so the Biden administration has to follow the process outlined in the existing laws. He's done what he is legally able to do, and it's more than any of his predecessors have. It may be slow, but it's pretty much a fast as the law allows.
He didn't need them to vote for it. If he was willing to pass a bill that would be supported by the other Republicans and some Democrats, he could have kept his promise. He just didn't want to upset the FreeDumb Caucus and risk losing his position as Speaker. Ultimately, he acquiesced and brought the promises bill to a vote at the final hour, but it was too late. All he managed to do was enrage the extremists in his party enough for them to bring a vote to oust him, while also showing the Democrats that his promises are worthless. If he brought the good bill up earlier, the Democrats might have voted to keep him as Speaker, but his actions killed the only shred of a hope for that.
It looks like they moved out when George Miller retired from Congress in 2014, but they were there for about 30 years.
Yeah, I found it on my laptop and was too lazy to send it over to my phone where I was on lemmy. So I typed it up, and then I actually sent the link to my phone when it was pointed out that it was broken.
Well, maybe lazy isn't the right word. But I was too something.
I like Robert Delaunay, and also his wife, Sonia Delaunay. Their work involves a lot of bright, vibrant colors. It also was rather abstract or impressionistic, which I enjoyed. I think I like Piet Mondrian for similar reasons. Jan Sluyters would be another.
I also like JMW Turner a lot. I'm a sucker for lighting and dynamic skies in paintings, and his work features that very prominently. Frederic Edwin Church is another painter along these lines that I really enjoy.
A more contemporary passive that I like is Nina Tokhtaman Valetova. Her work also involves a lot of bold colors.
The ask that YouTube manage their system better. Currently, they assume that a copyright claim is valid unless proven otherwise, and it is difficult for content creators to actually get them to review a claim to determine if it is invalid. So, a lot of legitimate users that post videos without actually violating anybody's copyright end up being permanently punished for somebody illegitimate claim. What we want is for YouTube to, one, make it more difficult or consequential to file a bad claim, and two, make it easier to dispute a bad claim.
However, that's not going to happen because the YouTube itself is legally responsible for copyrighted material that is posted to their platform. Because of that, they are incentivised to assume a claim is valid lest they end up in court for violating somebody's legitimate copyright. Meaning that the current system entails a private company adjudicating legal questions where they are not an impartial actor in the dispute.
So your concern is legitimate, but it's ignoring the fact that we already are in a situation where a private company is prosecuting fraud. People want it to change so that it is more in favor of the content creators (or at least, in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty), but it would ultimately be better if they were not involved in it whatsoever. However, major copyright holders pushed for laws that put the onus on YouTube because it makes it easier for them, and it's unlikely for those laws to change anytime soon. That's what I'd say we should be pushing for, but it's also fair to say that the Content ID system is flawed and allows too much fraud to go unpunished.
In case you missed the joke, this is a reference to how John Hinckley Jr shot Reagan because he thought it would impress Jodie Foster. It's posted today because of the assassination attempt on Trump yesterday.