jrburkh

I was fully prepared to think people were overreacting, but it really is bizarre. The cherry on the cake is the brother's lip bite toward the end. He must already know his sister adores him, right? So WTF is he getting all bashful when she expresses that? I can easily imagine the excitement depicted here in myself when I see my distant siblings. I can also easily imagine knocking on my sister's door, and then joking I must have the wrong house, but it didn't seem like it was a joke for him - it seemed like genuine surprise that his sister is all grown up to the point he didn't recognize her. Shit is weird. But fuck, the lip bite?! I know I'm not everybody, but I feel like a more normal response to a sibling expressing "you're my present this year", would be like, "awwwww" and a hug. It sure was fuck isn't a lip bite.

FUCKING. BIZARRE.

I despise Trump and think he absolutely should be disqualified from holding office (including the presidency) - AT A MINIMUM. I'm also far more a "spirit of the law" advocate than "letter of the law". With that said, the findings of the judge are perfectly reasonable in full context. The letter of the law clearly omits in its enumerations the office of the presidency. For this to have been merely a mistake would be so monumental an oversight as to make it highly unlikely. If there had been no listing of included offices, then the catch-all portion of that language would perhaps inarguably include the presidency (because of course it SHOULD be included). Thus, this omission also strikes at the spirit of the law. What the judge is saying is that the fact this list is included, yet fails to include so obvious an office one would imagine should be included (the presidency), indicates - absent compelling evidence to the contrary - that the Founders intended it to be omitted. In other words, absent said evidence, neither the letter of the law nor the spirit of the law suggest the presidency was meant to be included.

This is a circumstance in which I would argue the judge ain't wrong and if we're not happy with that, then the law needs to be changed.

Also, papyrus sucks.

I see OnePlus in the top comments. I was a OnePlus fanboi from day one. From one through ten, I think I only missed one serious - otherwise, I bought some iteration of every series during that span. I honestly couldn't say exactly why at the moment, so maybe this comment is trash, but after my OnePlus 10 Pro 5G or whatever the specific name was, I swapped over to the Pixel 7 Pro, and refuse to look back at this point. I just upgraded to the 8 Pro and I have zero complaints.

If I had to venture a guess, part of the reason for the switch had to do with the gradual increase in price of the OnePlus flagship phones over time. I think the first one was something like $299, and was a solid phone, especially compared to the Samsung flagship at the time which was probably twice that, at least. At this point, OnePlus is pretty close to equal cost when comparing models with similar features. I like being on top of the newest software features, so with all else being more or less equal, the Pixel phones are where it's at. Of course, with Samsung cooperating with Google on phones being Android nekkid, maybe Samsung is worth a try?

TL;DR - OnePlus isn't worth it anymore. Go Pixel, or maybe Samsung. If you've got an especially itchy privacy concern, then don't ask me - sounds like other people got you covered there.

Edit: just looked up the Fairphone, and its sustainability angle is intriguing...

It’s scare tactics.

That's exactly the NLRB's point. The NDA doesn't necessarily have to be legally enforceable to be unlawful.

A common way the NLRB examines these types of things is by how a reasonable person would perceive it. Even if a lawsuit was filed to challenge the enforceability of the NDA and it was found unenforceable, the NLRB would still be able to argue a "reasonable person" would believe it was enforceable, and accordingly any restrictions on protected rights presented by the NDA would be unlawful.

I agree. If that doesn't work, I'd give the whole line a visual inspection for any more obvious signs of damage. If that doesn't work there are other options to troubleshoot, but I'd probably just replace the line and attempt to recycle the old cord into shorter lines for device connections, patching, etc.

I don't know if this is accurate or not, but it's the most nonsensical thing I've heard in a while. If engaging with something to say, "I don't want to see this," results in more of that content - the user will eventually leave the platform. I'm having this concern right now with my Google feed. I keep clicking not interested, yet continue getting similar content. Consequently, I'm increasingly leaning toward disabling the functionality because I'm tired of fucking seeing shit I don't care to see. Getting angry just thinking about it.

Not only that but we say corporations are people, yet when they are found to have knowingly caused actual human death, we punish them by making them pay a small fraction of the profits they earned through those same actions. Fuck capitalism.

I 100% agree with you, and did not intend to suggest otherwise.

Focusing on freeloaders rather than those in need is problematic. There will always be freeloaders, and sure, we should always aim to minimize their numbers. But is it worth it to deny those with genuine need who vastly outnumber the relatively miniscule number of freeloaders?

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but it's not the industries that needs to change, but rather the paradigm of our economic system. Advanced technologies are not going anywhere, are only going to get more advanced, and are only going to be regulated in ways to continue funneling money to the wealthy. Anybody who says technology will never be able to do {x} is fighting a losing battle.