I have no idea how you get that from a yawning emoji. Like, that isn’t “standing up” for anything.
You haven’t mirrored us. You’re just making stuff up.
I’m having a hard time seeing how Trump even has standing here. He’s not claiming they falsified anything, and he’s not the subject of the statements at issue, so what’s his problem? (Aside from Trump being butthurt for the sake of being angry, as usual, of course.)
As the article says, they do have that right, so the argument still applies.
While I don’t disagree with most of the article, a couple of things. First, you said:
You can’t under-estimate how little most of the public likes having cumbersome, dorky plastic strapped to their face.And then you said:
For mass adoption the technology needs to be seamless, minimalistic, and utterly unobtrusive, not whatever this is supposed to be:The latter was followed by a photo of what appears to be an AR device that, frankly, is pretty seamless, minimalistic, and unobtrusive as far as AR can be. They look like regular sunglasses/glasses, albeit on the thicker side in terms of the frame, but still within what non-AR/VR glasses that already exist look like. I have no idea how functional the AR part actually is, but in terms of the device’s external features, it frankly doesn’t seem that bad, especially compared to most contemporaries (like the aforementioned Apple Vision Pro). It certainly doesn’t look cumbersome, at least no more than a pair of glasses or sunglasses already is. Maybe it’s a bit dorky, but it’s at least a step in the right direction, surely; it definitely isn’t worse as a fashion statement compared to the other, incredibly bulky headsets on the market. Why you act as though it’s completely missing the reason people aren’t adopting AR or VR headsets is beyond me, at least given the reasons you gave. Second, there are a few reasons I think you missed for why AR headsets, specifically, haven’t really taken off.
To be clear, this is actually the result of fine imposed years ago that was set to double every week it went unpaid. Google never paid, and doubling every week is extremely fast exponential growth, leading to this monstrosity. In less than a year, the fine will reach a googol rubles.
And he wants to do this by… let’s see here…
[…] significantly improv[ing] surveillance systems, hir[ing] additional Border Patrol agents and resum[ing] border wall construction.Oh, and by reassigning maintenance of border-control cameras to an agency where that makes sense rather than [checks notes] the FAA. Yep. Those are definitely things that would “destroy U.S. sovereignty over its own borders and allow the entry of millions of [illegal immigrants].” He clearly “hates his Whiteness”.
All debunked. Try again.
For the record, this is the second time the case was appealed. The first time, the court vacated and remanded the relevant part on the grounds that there were open questions that prevented dismissal or summary judgment. The opinion says they are now satisfied that those questions have been answered and confirm that the speech at issue is government speech. Still seems odd that the standing issue wasn’t a problem until now, but what do I know?
I wouldn’t blame conservatives for this one. The same thing happened to “really” and “very”, where it became used for emphasis rather than meaning “truly”.
Yeah, that’s attacking them. Also JAQing off. If you don’t already know the answer, you’re being willfully ignorant.
The comment replied to.
Y’know, given the time of year, I’m surprised you didn’t take the opportunity to refer to this case with any zombie metaphors or anything like that.
The retailer maintains that its name refers to the “land of ice” rather than the country. Oh, shut up. That is both completely immaterial to this entire debacle and not remotely believable.In a previous article:
The company claims it wasn’t aware that Iceland’s government had been behind the application it blocked, which is both difficult to believe and entirely besides the point.History sure likes to rhyme, huh?
Not necessarily, and when it does, it’s to keep the mother’s heart beating.
Because, even assuming it’s accurate, Google isn’t a government agency, and it wasn’t done due to threats of prosecution from the government.
Why would they talk about “democracy” instead of following the rules of a complex political system the Founding Fathers cooked up to make sure that rich landowners would yield disproportionally more power than the hoi polloi?That’s still a democracy.
No, they’re saying they make others feel unsafe, and they’re worried about their own safety.
Because they’re deceiving readers into thinking they are qualified to speak of matters of campaign finance law.As qualified as a lawyer who specializes in campaign finance law? No. More qualified than a random guy on the street? Probably. At any rate, they weren’t claiming to be an expert; just to have some basic knowledge about this basic part of it.
Most local media stations tend to lean right due to who owns them.