He/Him or They/Them
Thank you. I saw it and immediately went to Miles Axelrod.
This isn’t ground news, it is MBFC. They don’t use AI for their ratings, and they aren’t vc funded. Literally both of those are next to each other on their about page if you cared to look.
Once again, the bot is giving you free information about the media source in the bot with more info linked on their site for free. You are free to ignore or block it. I just don’t understand throwing a fit about the existence of a bot designed to help users understand media bias for free.
If the mere existence of free and helpful information makes you so upset, just block it and walk away.
Media Bias Fact Check, the source for the info the bot gives is not ground news. It’s one of ground news’ sources. They are not connected in any meaningful sense.
Also, it’s not an ad, it gives you all the information right in the bot for free and links to the site with more info for free. They aren’t encouraging you or even suggesting donating to or buying ground news or mbfc.
Lastly, just block the account if you don’t want to see it. I have no idea why people are so upset at a bot for giving them free, helpful information they can choose to ignore or block.
It does come pre-installed on some computers depending on the provided OS and the changes made by the manufacturer. If you install your own fresh version of windows, it should only be installed if windows believes you need it for the component to function.
My last pre-built came with a bunch of garbage before I wiped it with a fresh copy of windows and almost all went away. I would certainly not say Intel is the worst though, older dell machines and even relatively modern HP machines come with a bunch of “necessarily for the component to function” garbage that can’t really be uninstalled easily (windows will reinstall them).
It’s both because there is more than one kind of road.
America really likes stroads which give the impression that you can safely travel at speeds that are actually dangerous. We do that often in neighborhoods where we should be going 20-25 max but the design of the roads encourages us to drive faster. Since the speed limit is often actually at a safe speed, the issue of speeding is about the design of the road and not the speed limit.
Larger roads like highways, freeways, and expressways are designed for high-speed travel but often have speed limits that are low for the sake of revenue generation. If you’ve ever driven through a small town where the highway design doesn’t change but the speed suddenly drops from 65 to 35 you know what I mean. In those cases the problem is with the arbitrarily low speed limit as some states have raised the cap up to 80 and have not seen a substantial increase in accident-related injuries and deaths.
Connector roads often suffer from one or the other problem listed above. They are either designed to make you feel like you can go 60 when you should be going 40 or are set at 30 when you could safely go 40. The road design needs to match the safe speed by making drivers feel unsafe when they exceed that speed and not unnecessarily penalize them by not putting the limit lower than that speed.
Both of those result in speeding but have different causes.
Our roads are designed to make us think we can go faster than we should and localities have an incentive to keep speed limits arbitrarily low to increase fines from speeders.
Yes. Without the courts ability to determine if something is unconstitutional then it would always be up to Congress / the executive to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That presents an obvious separation of powers problem and could easily be misused by a Congress or executive branch that are hostile to certain rights.
Your edits do add additional context and information, but they miss the broader point
Forced marriages (sometimes called arranged marriages) are a breach of consent regardless of abuse or trafficking being involved. Having your parents set you up with a date you are free to ignore or choose to engage with is one thing, having them pick who you will marry and when without your consent is another. Regardless of culture, you don’t get to violate others consent.
Or, better yet, increase the number of justices to at least the number of circuits we have. I would say take that number and multiply it by three so that there are 3 from each that can form a small panel to deal with smaller issues and form a larger, randomly selected, 9-11 judge panel to deal with bigger issues. It would also dramatically limit the power any one justice holds. Mandate a strict code of ethics and disclosure and put in term limits.
I totally agree! Just saying you could make that exact same argument but for three per district and it opens up a bunch more possibilities.
If you triple instead of double that you could have a three judge panel (like federal districts do) that could rule on smaller cases that come out of that circuit. Then, if needed, they could call a full 9 - 11 judge panel if it’s a larger topic. This would also allow them to hear many more cases than they currently do, which has been a problem for decades.
He’d be dead before the sentencing anyway. Take one for the team Joe!
Was a computer repair tech until a few months ago. About 6 months ago this older guy brought in his laptop because he had been hacked and they had changed his password. Was able to change the password to something new using some fancy tools but upon getting in all his files were still missing. Turns out OneDrive was on and ALL of his important files were only on OneDrive and not the computer. Well, Microsoft had changed his password when the hackers changed his computer password so he was locked out and Microsoft didn’t believe he owned the account anymore since he didn’t know the password. After weeks of calls he just gave up trying to get his stuff back.
Fuck OneDrive.
It’s the Principal Skinner meme response.
“Could I be wrong about the way men behave in society that makes women feel so uncomfortable? No, it’s the women who are wrong.”
It still shows up for me, I’ll post it below for reference.
The meme is about a controversial topic which has lead to numerous debates lately where “both sides” are extremely sexist to the other. I made an statement, it wasn’t subject of debate (unlike the meme).
there is no rule that the memes can’t be attached to debates
Never said that, I actually enjoy a lot of debates born from memes, so that’s not the problem. I clearly said I didn’t see this specific topic appropriate because of the sexist (and sometimes political) nature of it. Debates are only cool when they aren’t meant to divide and create conflict-
Were you guys outspoken then?
-which you seem to try to encourage. Nice try, but I’m not changing my mind here, this post doesn’t seem appropriate to me in the slightest. People here expect “haHa [insert funny akward quote]”, not “let’s compare ewoks to fucking rapists”.
Debates are only cool when they aren’t meant to divide and create conflict-
Do you know what debates are? What they are for? How they operate? A debate is always two opposing ideas, they are literally designed to divide and revolve around conflict. If you only like debates that unite and cause harmony then you don’t actually like debates, you like discussions.
I clearly said I didn’t see this specific topic appropriate because of the sexist (and sometimes political) nature of it.
A) Yes it’s a debate about sexism and rape culture, of course it’s going to involve sexism.
B) Everything is politics. People who complain about things “getting too political” just don’t like the politics on display.
We are literally in a meme community revolving around an allegory for the Vietnam war where the good guys are analogous to the Vietcong. If you think Star Wars is not a place for politics then you don’t understand Star Wars.
I, for one, am shocked, shocked that defenders of Russia are still using the same easily disproven lies to justify invading, occupying, and murdering a neighboring country.
It’s not like Russia has a history of lying about its military operations in Ukraine or anything, right?
It’s the second half of your claim you’d have to support with evidence. Of course we help fund them, but it’s not so clear that they “benefit Hamas”".
If you read something like this article here, you’d note that of the 19 alleged ties to Hamas (of 34,000 workers btw) none have been found to be supported by evidence. Some of them are still going, and maybe they will show some kind of connection, but A) the time to believe that is when evidence is provided, not when the claim is made and B) I don’t really think cutting funding for an agency that does legitimate help to people currently starving and dying is justified just because 0.05% of employees have ties to Hamas. Would you be Ok condemning and demanding we cut funding to the IDF if we found 0.05% of their personnel had ties to radical Zionist movements calling for the eradication of Palestinians? Something tells me you wouldn’t.
You also have a right to collect Nazi memorabilia if you want, doesn’t mean I’m not going to call you weird.
Do you think there might be anything different between collecting swords and collecting guns? Do you think most people who live in urban environments have a need for a semi-auto military style, magazine-fed rifle? What about multiple of them? What about machine guns?