This is precisely what would change:
the possible proposal would still require companies to include the disclaimer on their products at least once, but it would no longer require it to be repeated every time a health claim appears.
Meh, not nearly as big a deal as the headline suggests. And from the looks of this thread, not many people actually got this far into the article, and just made assumptions based on the headline, so sensationalism wins again, I guess…
Yeah, ridiculous. It’s not like the court didn’t recognize the putrescence of the acts in general, since others got over 20 years.
Even the fucking camera guy, who apparently wasn’t involved in the actual trafficking at all, got 4 years. Is any sane person going to argue that his offense is twice as bad as hers?
I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.
You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.
The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.
So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.
Criminal charges isn’t a fucking conviction.
Nobody said it was, straw man builder. But the headline is deliberately misleading, and that’s what I was pointing out.
There is literally zero reason to cherry-pick specific cities when assessing ICE’s actions as a department.
What point are you trying to make about it being higher than the general population?
…that that demographic contains more than double the incidence of violent criminals than the general population. What else?
That they are doing ever so slightly better than arresting people at random?
The crime ICE is arresting people for is not a violent one, so this is a complete non-sequitur.
That headline works whether or not that C is capitalized, heh…
Ostensibly, at least.
With violent conviction: 7%
That’s a lot higher than the general population, isn’t it? Google says it’s 2-4% estimated (there’s apparently no explicit data collected on specifically violent convictions—there is for “felony” convictions, but there are a ton of non-violent felonies, so that’s pretty useless for this kind of comparison).
I also can’t help but notice that the article, especially the headline, is very careful to say “most” only about certain “city crackdowns”. According to the same chart in the article, among all ICE arrests across the US from Jan 20th to Oct 15th, only 33% had “No criminal charges”, which means 67% of them did have criminal charges. Pretty stark contrast to what the headline would like to imply, isn’t it?
Overall, pretty blatant cherry-picking. I hate that it’s so difficult to find media that will just present the facts without any spin.
That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.
That is the point they’re making.
Is there another more ‘generic’ German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of ‘he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer’, and then no need to keep using “Fuhrer” anymore in the rest of the article.
If your concerns are ethical, then you should be consuming only indie music from unsigned artists
…who could be using AI, lol.
I’ve never used AI for interview stuff, beyond a little thing that gave me sample questions and assessed my recorded verbal response, to use as prep before an interview, but in reading that, I remembered that Nvidia has a thing where a visual effect will make your eyes look like you’re looking straight into the camera all the time (unless they’re totally closed of course), and imagined this type of person using that as further subterfuge during the interview, to conceal the ‘looking down’.
Luckily, the average person leaning completely on AI for an interview is not nearly savvy enough for this sort of thing, in my experience.
You are definitely not beating the “deliberately obtuse” allegations.
In no way did Musk insist that the entire plan be tweeted in plain text as tweets, and no reasonable person would consider putting a link to X (pardon the pun) in a Twitter thread as not counting as ‘putting X in a Twitter thread’.
“not linked document” is literally a lie, why would you think it wouldn’t be identified as such, when his exact words are so readily available?
This article is about Brazil.
According to the same article, 42% of drug dealers did not complete elementary school. Not quite the same situation as what it’s like in the US.
Do you think this is some new idea that hasn’t been tried yet, or something?
The people still starving are starving due to abuse, neglect, political instability, and war. None of those things can be fixed with money, or improved production. What good is improved production going to do the masses when the local warlord takes control of it (and therefore the food supply)? Arguably, creating those tools in areas where that unrest/instability still exists is likely to make things worse, not better, because it literally makes the oppressors more efficient.
The bottom line is that you can’t end world hunger until/unless there is world peace.
Did you read anything but the title?
So you’re essentially admitting to the headline being misleading. We can agree on that.
Moving production around and creating new transporrt routes are not ongoing costs.
It’s also not the reason world hunger still exists.
A URL linking to a fully fleshed-out plan can be linked in much less than 140 characters, you’re being deliberately obtuse, and also evading the main issue I pointed out, that their response was a colossal backpedal from their initial sensational claim.
Source? That’s news to me, and when I tried finding a source myself, all I found were extensions etc. to add that to the browser.
EDIT: Both the comment I replied to, and a comment replying to me by the same person, have been deleted…were they caught in a lie/mistake and not brave enough to admit it? lol