To be fair, I think that this quote was the mayor was responding to early questions on the basis of early reports and {ahem} limited information (perhaps from the chief himself?), before he had a chance to hear a full story. Did he have any reason to doubt the narrative? It might be interesting to know what the mayor actually knew/had been told at the time he made that statement, and what he was saying later, after the actual facts started coming out.
... If Republican-appointed Judges can pull this crap, why can't Democratic-nominated Judges get in on the fun too?
Funny... I could have sworn that Zuck said the exact opposite under oath in court... Perhaps his letter to the committee was just performative ass-covering ploy, to placate the Republicans in case Trump somehow actually wins the next election?
"Proof"? Not even facts -- just some (counter-factual) whining by Zuckerberg trying to please the Republicans by walking back what he/Facebook previously testified in court.
Welcome to the world of being held accountable for doing your job poorly. Doctors and surgeons spend many years acquiring the necessary training to do our jobs properly. Unwarranted ignorance of our field or poor judgment in execution of our duties is not only no excuse, it's punishable -- and not only with hefty financial judgements, but even the possibility of losing our license to practice medicine). Surely in a field with such meager training requirements as your own, this degree of accountability shouldn't be a problem worth mentioning?
"Dear me... How ever could the contents of my bank account have any bearing on the contents of my wallet? How could anyone even conceive of such a connection?"
Congratulations! I logged in today only so I could down-vote your astoundingly ignorant, clownishly bigoted, and utterly stupid comment. (f course, if I had but paused a moment first to check who said it, I probably wouldn't have bothered -- as your reputation makes such inanity merely par for the course.)
more likely, paid.
In what world will the US Congress pass a good abortion law?None. Abortion is a medical procedure, and a medical decision that properly lies under the responsible judgement of a qualified doctor and his or her patient. There is no more need or cause for an "abortion law", than there is for a "tooth extraction law", or an "appendectomy law", a mastectomy law, or a "mole removal law".
Gab is not only most definitely not anything like a "public square", it's amazingly like a clap-trap dive bar outside city limits, run by and patronized only by racists, bigots, incels, unrepentant fascists, and outright Nazis -- and regular folk wouldn't dream of setting foot anywhere near the place.
Rather telling, isn't it?
"We're not advertising on MAGA platforms because we don't want to. We don't want to to be associated with them -- more importantly, we don't want our customers to associate them with us. How, exactly, is any of this any of your business, anyways? Good day, sir."
It sounds a lot like the root problem is that the horse wasn't properly trained to obey signals only from its rider. (Or maybe the horse was just being friendly to the nice man who was inviting him to come closer -- maybe there was come carrot or apple to be had.) But either way, how is it now supposed to be the "civilian's" fault, that the horse responded to the clicks, and something the "civilian" can be arrested and charged over?
Why am I suddenly reminded of that scene in Minority Report, in which Tom Cruise's character is repeatedly accosted by yet another personalized advert, addressing him by name, and pitching yet another product at him, with every step he takes?
Ummm... Are legal contracts any more protected by copyright, than legal arguments? (Ie. are contracts and TOS actually even shielded by copyright at all?)
They really want people to adhere to the terms -- but they really, really don't want people to know the terms?
Ummm... "home", "hospital" "MacDonalds" and eventually "Tenth Circuit". I understand that the precise location is not the part of the story that interests Tim Cushing, nor what caught his attention, nor, most especially, what makes this story an important one to cover -- I'm sympathetic, even. Nonetheless, the reader really should not need to consult the court document itself to discover that this all occurred somewhere in "Archuleta County, a rural area in Southwestern Colorado".
The problem with turning all these disputes into court cases is the severe backlog in Federal court cases. The consequence is that every one of these will 1) cost a fortune to litigate and 2) take so long that whatever was at issue is no longer relevant. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” and the Supreme Court’s recent decisions have the effect of denying justice in a shitload of situations.Not a bug. It just makes it even easier for the court to "shadow docket" any cases they can't be bothered to fabricate a reason for supporting the previous court's decision.
No. He loves you too.
Plus, in some cases, needing to understand which information is actually relevant to the question, and how to use it properly. -- For example, I remember how in first year chemistry and physics courses (especially units on thermodynamics) a fair number of "straight 'A'" and "reliable 'B'" students were suddenly running into a lot of difficulty they didn't know how to deal with. These students were well-practiced in finding "the right values" for the right variables in a formulae, and if necessary juggling the formulae a bit to isolate the variable they were trying to calculate, but this was no longer sufficient to obtain the right answer. Because there was now more than one formulae that had the same variables, and they now needed to really understand/have insight into what was going on in all those formulas, a cheat sheet (and these were allowed) with all the formulae they were expected to use wasn't all that much help to them).